Appearance not given v. BHARAT SANCHAL NIGAM LIMITED ORS

W.P.(C) 1295/2025 Page 1 of 4$~56 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1295/2025 (Disposed off case) ANIL KUMAR NAIK R .....Petitioner Through: Appearance not given. versus BHARAT SANCHAL NIGAM LIMITED & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Digvijay Rai, Mr. Archit Mishra, Advocates for AAI. CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R% 21.04.2025CM APPL. 22805/2025 (for recall of order dated 17.02.2025) 1.This application has been filed by the petitioner for recall of an order dated 17.02.2025 in the captioned writ petition and restoring the writ petition to its original number. 2.The order dated 17.02.2025 reads as follows: “1. Further to the order dated 13.02.2025, Mr. Digvijay Rai, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 – Airports Authority of India [“AAI”] clearly states that the recruitment to the post of Manager (Electronics) in AAI has been closed on 03.02.2025. 2. In view of the above statement of Mr. Rai, Mr. Rajan seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition. 3. The petition, alongwith the pending application, is dismissed as withdrawn.” 3.The ground taken in the application is that the statement made by learned counsel for Airports Authority of India [“AAI”], that the recruitment process for the post in question had already been concluded, was incorrect. 4.The petitioner had applied for the post of Manager (Electronics) in This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 20:20:57 W.P.(C) 1295/2025 Page 2 of 4AAI pursuant to an advertisement bearing No. 1/2010. 5.There was some litigation as to filling up to all the vacancies under the said advertisement, in which this Court passed an order dated 02.08.2013 in W.P.(C) 5767/2011 directing AAI to complete the selection process for the number of available vacancies. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench videjudgment dated 18.11.2015 in LPA 648/2013 and connected matters. The Supreme Court declined leave to appeal by an order dated 02.03.2022 in SLP(C) 8072-8073/2016. I am informed that during the pendency of the proceedingsbefore the Division Bench and the Supreme Court, the order of the learned Single Judge had been stayed. 6.Consequently, after the dismissal of the SLP by the Supreme Court, AAI sought to implement the order of the learned Single Judge and in this process, made a provisional offer of appointment to the petitioner on 02.02.2023. 7.The petitioner thereafter submitted his technical resignation to Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited [“BSNL”] on 06.02.2023, which was rejected by a communication dated 28.02.2023 on the ground that technical resignation and lien policy are not applicable to BSNL. The letter dated 28.02.2023 specifically refers to a communication dated 10.01.2023, by which BSNL had issued a no objection certificate for the petitioner to appear in document verification with AAI, with the condition that no technical resignation will be accepted. 8.Be that as it may, the petitioner first filed W.P.(C) 3318/2023 against AAI and CM APPL. 13180/2024 for directions and impleadment. This writ petition and the application were withdrawn by order dated This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 20:20:57 W.P.(C) 1295/2025 Page 3 of 404.03.2024, with liberty to file a substantive writ petition. 9.The petitioner then filed W.P.(C) 4212/2024, and again made an application for amendment of the writ petition. That petition was withdrawn by order dated 24.12.2024,with liberty to file a comprehensive writ petition inter alia lying a challenge to the order rejecting his request for technical resignation. 10.The present writ petition is the third writ petition filed by the petitioner. By the time it was first taken up for hearing on 13.02.2025, substantial time had lapsed since the advertisement in question was issued in the year 2010, the provisional letter of appointment was issued to the petitioner by AAI on 02.02.2023, and his technical resignation was rejected by order dated 28.02.2023. This Court therefore passed the following order: “2. Having regard to the passage of time, the first question that arises is whether the petitioner can at all be accommodated against the post of Manager (Electronics) offered to him in the AAI by letter dated 02.02.2023. 3. Mr. Digvijay Rai, learned counsel, who appears on advance notice, is requested to take instructions before any further orders are passed in this writ petition.” 11.It is in these circumstances that Mr. Digvijay Rai’s statement was recorded on 17.02.2025 and the writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn. 12.The documents attached with this application purport to show that the recruitment process is still going on. The first document is a letter dated 13.01.2025 issued to a candidate for the same post. It may be noted that the said letter pre-dates 03.02.2025, which is the date mentioned by Mr. Rai, recorded in the order dated 17.02.2025. Further, the letter refers This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 20:20:57 W.P.(C) 1295/2025 Page 4 of 4expressly to an application for the same post under advertisement No. 2/2018, which is not the advertisement under which the petitioner applied. It is therefore of no relevance to the petitioner’s entitlement for appointment. 13.In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find no reason in this application to reopen the writ petition. The petitioner has not placed on record any material to show that the recruitment under the advertisement for which he applied, is still ongoing. Further, his challenge arises out of a provisional order of appointment issued by AAI on 02.02.2023 and a rejection of his technical resignation also in February 2023. Although he had filed earlier writ petitions, AAI has made it clear that the vacancy has since been filled and no further relief therefore can be granted in this writ petition. 14.It may also be noted that the present application is been filed after a change of counsel by the petitioner. The Supreme Court, has time and again, deprecated the practice of filing of applications for recall, modification, etc., after change of counsel. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment in T.N. Electricity v. N. Raju Reddiar [(1997) 9 SCC 736]. 15.The application is a misuse of the process of Court and stands dismissed. PRATEEK JALAN, JAPRIL 21, 2025 “Bhupi/kb”/