Union Of India VS Mirza Shahid Beg

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

AA, 1402 of 2015, Judgment Date: Jun 29, 2015

M.C.C.No.1402/2015
29/06/2015
Shri Atul Choudhury, learned counsel for the
applicants.
This application has been filed for restoration of
M.CC No.3204/2003 which has been dismissed for want of
prosecution on 6.3.2014.
Heard on I.A. No.6651/2015, an application for
seeking condonation of delay.
There is a delay of more than 394 days in filing of this
application.
With a view to consider as to whether an application
filed in the year 2003 should be recalled or not, when we
have gone through the records and find that M.C.C.
No.3204/2003 was filed on 6.9.2003 i.e. more than 12 years
back seeking recall or modification of the order dated
26.3.2003 passed in Writ Petition No.5176/2003. The said
writ petition was decided by the Division Bench on
26.3.2003. The Division Bench found that the order passed
by the CAT does not call for interference and in fact upheld
the order of CAT which was passed in favour of applicant-
Railway Administration.
However, the learned counsel who appeared for the
Railway Administration made a statement before the
Division Bench that even though the respondent-employee
has failed in the selection process for appointment as a
Group D employee and even though he is overage, but he
will be permitted to appear in the next selection process.
Thereafter, the writ petition was disposed of by holding that
as and when a further selection is conducted, the employee
will be granted an opportunity to take part in the said
selection. It seems that once the respondent-employee is
overage, such contention could not be made by the counsel
for the applicants, therefore, the application for
review/modification was made.
Now, after a period of 12 years, no purpose will be
served if the M.C.C. is restored and there is no purpose in
keeping the matter pending. That apart, it is now indicated
to us that in the further selection held, the employee has
failed.
In para 8 of this application, it has been indicated that
the employee appeared in the further selection in pursuance
to the order dated 26.3.2003 passed in the original writ
petition and he has failed.
That being so, no case is made out for reopening of
the matter, as the order passed in W.P. No.5176/2003 is
now complied with.
Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
(Rajendra Menon)                                              (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
                 Judge                                                                    Judge
Biswal