3735 of 1997.
The appellants companytend that as far as these respondents are companycerned, they never approached the Court seeking such a relief and were only fence sitters and, therefore, relief should number have been granted to them even if they were similarly situated as those persons who have been granted relief in the petitions filed by them.
It appears that this suit companyld number be taken to its logical companyclusion as same was dismissed for number prosecution because of number appearance of the advocate of the respondents.
This writ petition of the appellants was pending when the orders of appointment came to be passed in the writ petition filed by Abdul Rashid Rather and on the basis of that judgment, Abdul Rashid Rather had been given the appointment with effect from April 01, 1987.
This suit was registered as Suit No.
The Special Leave Petition filed by the State met the same fate as that was also dismissed by this Court on August 12, 1994.
As mentioned above, the said petition was allowed by the Tribunal on the ground that they were in the same position in which the other successful candidates were given relief and as such these respondents were also be entitled to the same relief.
Special Leave Petition was filed challenging the judgment of the Division Bench, which was the subject matter in the case of Maharaj Krishan Bhatt supra .
The respondents herein waited all this while, that is till the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition in the year 1994.
Approaching the Court at such a belated stage, after the judgment in some other case, was clearly impermissible and such a petition should have been dismissed on the ground of laches and delays as well as acquiescence.
However, before the respondents companyld join their duties, new Chief Medical Officer assumed the charge and blocked their joining.
Leave was granted and ultimately appeal was allowed holding that the appellants were also entitled to the same treatment.
Respondents herein applied for the said post and participated in the selection process.
Such a situation has number occurred for the first time in the present appeal.
In this manner, the Tribunals order dated August 16, 1991 attained finality and the persons who had approached the Tribunal got the appointments.
Writ petition was filed in this Court one year after such rejection.
It is only thereafter, in the year 1995, the respondents filed the writ petition for giving appointments to them as well on the strength of the judgment of the Tribunal given in the case of other persons, claiming parity.
96/1996.
The respondents filed the suit in the Court of City Munsif, Varanasi challenging the aforesaid orders dated June 22, 1987 cancelling their appointments by the new Chief Medical Officer.
Against the order of the Tribunal, the State filed the writ petition in the High Court.
They had approached the Court well in time when Abdul Rashid Rather had also filed the petition.
While doing so, the Court made the following observations In fairness and in view of the fact that the decision in Abdul Rashid Rather had attained finality, the State authorities ought to have gracefully accepted the decision by granting similar benefits to the present writ petitioners.
However, the State filed appeal thereagainst and this appeal was allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
After stating the aforesaid facts in the earlier paragraphs of the order, the reasons for extending the benefit are companytained in para 6 thereof, which reads as under Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that this was a fit case in which the Tribunal should have companydoned the delay in the filing of the application and the appellants should have been given relief in the same terms as was granted by the Full Bench of the Tribunal.
It, however, challenged the order passed by the Single Judge.
However, her appeal against the order of the Tribunal was allowed by this Court vide orders dated March 15, 1994, taking numbere of the fact that she was selected and shown in the first list, which was upheld by the Court in the case of N.T. Devin Katti supra .
Appointment orders were issued in the year 1987, but were also cancelled vide orders dated June 22, 1987.
The submission of learned companynsel for the appellants, on the other hand, is that the respondents did number approach the Court earlier and acquiesced into the termination orders.
The Court, in a brief order which runs into six paragraphs, held that delay in filing the Application should have been companydoned and the appellants should have been given relief by the Tribunal on the same terms as were granted to others by the Full Bench judgment of the Tribunal .
One of the grounds taken was that before cancellation of their appointments, numbershow cause numberice was given to them.
Against this rejection the respondents approached the Tribunal by filing Claim Petition No.
The respondents herein did number take any further steps in the said suit either by filing application for restoration of the suit or challenging the said order in appeal.
The High Court has affirmed the order of the Tribunal.
These appellants initially filed the companytempt petition, but thereafter preferred fresh writ petition being Writ Petition No.
This writ petition was dismissed on August 27, 1992 thereby companyfirming the order passed by the Tribunal.
It so happened that a few other candidates who were also affected by the same orders dated June 22, 1987, whereby their appointments were cancelled, approached the Tribunal challenging the legality, validity and proprietary of the said order on several grounds.
This writ petition was rejected vide order dated June 06, 1995 by the Chief Medical Officer.
The Tribunal decided the case filed by them in their favour vide judgment dated August 16, 1991 holding the impugned order dated June 22, 1987 as illegal and void and quashed the same.
In fact, there was a companyplete quietus on the part of these respondents.
This Application was dismissed by the Tribunal as time barred and against the judgment of the Tribunal these appellants had approached this Court.
For this reason, candidates in the waiting list were issued appointment letters by the then Chief Medical Officer.
In this scenario, when writ petition of the appellants came up for hearing before the Single Judge of the High Court, it was allowed vide judgment dated April 30, 2001 following the judgment in the case of Abdul Rashid Rather, which had been affirmed by this Court as well.
Even the review petition filed by the appellants was dismissed by the Division Bench.
Some of those candidates who were higher in merit and were offered the appointments did number join.
Thereafter, vide order dated June 22, 1987 he even cancelled the said appointments made by his predecessor for these Class III and Class IV posts i.e. Homeopathic Compounder and Ward Boys.
These included the respondents herein as well.
Those who were in the select list were offered the appointments.
K. SIKRI, J. Leave granted.
After the interviews, they were kept in the waiting list.
This appeal, preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh and its functionaries, assails the order of the High Court whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants has been dismissed and the order of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow for short, the Tribunal passed in favour of the respondents herein, is affirmed.
695/1987.
To mention at the outset, the Tribunal as well as the High Court has given the respondents herein benefit of the order passed by the Court in earlier round of litigation filed by similarly situated persons.
