D.N.Patel, J. - (1.) When the matter is called out counsel for the appellant is absent.
(2.) We have heard the counsel for the respondents at length. It is submitted by counsel for the respondents that original petitioner, had preferred writ petition, bearing W.P. (S) No. 2013 of 2014, which was dismissed by the learned single Judge vide order dated 28th September, 2015 and hence, the original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.
(3.) It is submitted by counsel for the respondents that father of the original petitioner has expired on 2-2-2001. Thereafter, application for compassionate appointment was preferred by this appellant (original petitioner) on 10-10-2001, which was rejected vide order dated 13th March, 2002 and the writ petition has been preferred in the year 2014 and hence, there is gross delay in preferring the writ petition. It is further submitted by counsel for the respondents that the very purpose of the compassionate appointment has been frustrated by now. It is further submitted by counsel for the respondents that in the service excerpts, the name of this appellant (original petitioner) was never inserted. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant.;