Hon’ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.—The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been invoked by the petitioner for seeking the following reliefs :

“(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents to provide his appointment when his other batchmates were appointed i.e. 20.5.1998 with all consequential benefits including fixation of pay, length of active services and arrears of pay with interest thereon 18% p.a. and seniority.

(II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents to fix the responsibility and punish the erring officials.

(III) Issue any other and further writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(IV) Award costs of the petitioner.”

2. The petitioner’s case, before this Court is that he appeared in U.P. State Public Services Examination of 1994 batch, and was selected for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. A notification of appointment dated 26.3.1998 was issued, wherein the name of the petitioner finds mention at serial No. 15. This notification of appointment was not a part of the record of the writ petition and has been made available by the counsel for the petitioner, during the course of hearing, which is taken on record. The order dated 26.3.1998, provides for posting of the candidates for the purposes of training at Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Police Academy, Moradabad, and their appointment was to be on probation, for two years, from the date they assumed charge. It also provided that respective seniority of the candidates were to be determined in accordance with the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Police Service Regulations, 1942.

3. The petitioner submits that he had received communication dated 4.4.1998, which required the petitioner to report for joining on 20.5.1998 at the Police Academy, Moradabad, for training. It is further submitted that as delay was likely to be caused in holding of the training, he decided to appear in All India Civil Services Examination and, therefore, applied for extension of time for six months, to join vide application dated 5.5.1998. Another application was moved, reiterating the same contents on 14.5.1998. Lastly, he applied vide application dated 24.7.1998. However, no orders extending the time for joining were passed and consequently the period for joining was not extended beyond 20.5.1998. Ultimately, the petitioner was served with an order dated 1.9.1998, cancelling his appointment on account of not joining at Police Academy, Moradabad.

4. The petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 35090 of 1999, challenging the order dated 1.9.1998. The Writ Petition No. 35090 of 1999 was allowed on 14.2.2000. This Court found substance in the arguments in petitioner’s case that similarly placed person, namely Sri Rohit Mishra, who too had not joined and consequently faced cancellation of appointment, was allowed joining, but petitioner was discriminated. The denial of equal treatment to the petitioner was held to be discriminatory and the writ petition was consequently allowed, with a direction permitting the petitioner to join. The Division Bench judgment dated 14.2.2000 was challenged by the State, by filing Civil Appeal No. 1536 of 2001. The appeal of the State was allowed by the Apex Court vide judgment dated 26.2.2001, which is reproduced :

“Special leave granted.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

We are not satisfied that the case of the respondent was identical to that of Rohit Mishra which is the precedent relied upon by the High Court in granting relief to the respondent. It is the case of the appellants herein that there was no request for extension of time received from the respondent and the High Court in the the impugned judgment has not adverted to this part of the controversy. The pleadings before the High Court clearly show that the submission o