Employer cannot unilaterally overreach court order disposing writ on counsel's statement by relieving employee as dismissed; must seek clarification or review.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:-

“i). For quashing decision of respondents as communicated vide annexure P-14 dated 31.3.2015 wherein petitioner had once again been directed not to report for his duties w.e.f. 1.4.2015 on the incorrect ground that his writ petition bearing no. CWP 8290/14 was dismissed.
ii) For issuing a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ for directing the respondents to let the petitioner join as Peon cum Frash i.e. the post against which he has been selected pursuant to annexure P-4.
iii) For quashing the condition of eligibility of a candidate followed/prescribed by respondents for the posts of Sweepers/Peon cum Frash as incorporated at annexure P-4 to the extent they debar higher qualified candidates from participating in selection process with further prayer to direct the respondents not to incorporate such unconstitutional conditions in future.
iv) For directing the respondents to issue appointment order to the petitioner pursuant to his selection along with all consequential benefits of salary etc. along with interest.”

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this writ petition are that a post of Peon-cum-Frash was advertised by the respondent-Bank and the present petitioner responded thereto. Copy of advertisement is appended with the petition as Annexure P-5 and perusal thereof demonstrates that the post in issue was advertised for Ner Chowk branch of the respondent-Bank which was reserved for Scheduled Caste category. The petitioner applied for the said post. In terms of the advertisement, a candidate whose educational qualification was less than 10+2, was eligible to apply for the said post. The petitioner participated in the process and was declared as successful but was not offered appointment on the ground that he was possessing qualification higher than 10+2.

3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed CWP No. 8290 of 2014, titled as Charanjeet Singh vs. State Bank Pathaila and another . When said case of the petitioner was listed before the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court on the first occasion, Hon’ble Division Bench vide Annexure P-12, dated 13.11.2014, was pleased to pass the following order:-

“CWP No. 8290 of 2014
The petitioner has qualified the examination process of Peon-cum-Frash undertaken by the respondents, but the respondents are not allowing him to join duties on the pretext that he is having 10+2 qualification.
Issue notice to the respondents, returnable within two weeks. The Registry is directed to convey the order to the respondents through email, by fax, by ordinary mode and by post also at the expense of the petitioner. List on 4th December, 2014.
CMP No.17902 of 2014.
The application is disposed of by providing that the petitioner be allowed to join the duties, subject to the outcome of the writ petition. Alteration/modification/vacation on motion.
CMP No.17903 of 2014 Granted. The application is disposed of.
Copy dasti.”

4. Thereafter, when the matter was listed before the Court on 18.12.2014, the petition was disposed of by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the following terms:-

“The grievance of the petitioner is that despite selection for the post of Peon-cum-Frash, the respondents were not allowing him to join, for the reason that he is having higher qualification, i.e. 10+2, whereas the requirement is middle pass.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner stated at the Bar that now, the petitioner has been allowed to join by the respondents, in terms of the order dated 13.11.2014, passed by this Court in CMP No. 17902 of 2014. Her stateme