The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to avoid a miscarriage of justice by allowing the appellant to pursue the remedy in the writ petition and emphasizing the diligent pursuit of the matter.

Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel

2. Affidavit of service is already on record. As per affidavit of service the opposite parties have been duly served.

3. This review petition has been filed arising out of order dated 22.9.2014, passed in Writ Petition No.2090 (SS) of 1999, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed making observations that "either the cause of action no more survives or that petitioner has lost interest in this matter or it has otherwise become infructuous...."

4. It is also observed that petitioner has not been able to make out a case so as to justify interference of this Court.

5. Learned counsel for review petitioner submits that the order under review has been passed in the absence of parties' counsel. The writ petition has not become infructuous. The matter relates to the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Lecturer, Geography in a government aided intermediate college. The petitioner is still working and getting salary on the basis of interim order.

6. Mr. H.G.S. Parihar, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of review petitioner submits that almost under the similar facts and circumstances arising out of one of the similar orders the Division Bench consisting of Hon'ble the Chief Justice and another Hon'ble Judge in Special Appeal (D) No.267 of 2015 vide order dated 14.7.2015 has set aside the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge and has remanded the matter back to the learned Single Judge to decide it afresh on merit.

7. Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the aforesaid position.

8. The order dated 22.9.2010, passed in Writ Petition NO.2090 (SS) of 1999 which is under review on reproduction reads as under: -

"1. Called in revised. None appeared to press this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner.

2. It appears that either the cause of action no more survives or that petitioner has lost interest in this matter or it has otherwise become infructuous and, probably for this reason, none is interested to have decided this matter on merits and that is why, counsel for petitioner is absent.

3. However, I myself have gone through the pleadings, grounds as also reliefs sought and find that petitioner is not able to make out a case so as to justify interference of this Court by granting reliefs, as prayed for.

4. In view of above, the writ petition is dismissed.

5. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

Order Date: - 22.9.2014."

9. The Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal (D) No.267 of 2015 after recording the observations made with respect to the similar order has allowed the special appeal and set aside the order passed by learned Single Judge. The relevant paragraphs of the order dated 14.7.2015, passed in Special Appeal (D) No.267 of 2015 on reproduction reads as under: -

"Reading the order of the learned Single Judge dated 14 August 2014, it is evident that the appellant and his Advocate were both absent when the petition was called out for hearing. In fact, in paragraph 2 of the order, the learned Single Judge recorded that it appeared that either the cause of action had no longer survived or the appellant had lost interest in the matter or it had otherwise become infructuous and, probably for that reason, the Appellant was not interested in having the matter decided on merits. Having observed this, the learned Single Judge proceeded to record that having gone through the pleadings, grounds and reliefs, the appellant was not able to make out a case justifying interference by the Court.

We find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that once the learned Single Judge had held that the petition was liable to be dismissed in the absence of the appellant and his Advocate, there was no occasion for the learned Single Judge to make any observation on merits of the case. The observations in paragraph 3 of the order dated 14 August 2014 cannot even be construed, reasonably speaking,