Judgment 1. The petitioner tried his luck before the Central Administrative Tribunal twice. The first time he had his case dismissed for default. This was by order dated 15.11.2000. Thereafter, he moved a miscellaneous application seeking recall of the order by which the case was dismissed for default. Probably, the petitioners contentions did not cut much ice with the Tribunal and it is on record that the miscellaneous appeal which was seeking recall of the order dismissing the case for default, was itself not pressed. Thus, now it is on record that the petitioner accepted the situation that his case was such that it needed to bedropped. This should have been the end of the matter. 2. With record of the Central Administrative Tribunal resting as the court has indicated, now the petitioners has arranged to file a writ petition before the High Court. What the petitioner could not receive from the Central Administrative Tribunal he is attempting to seek an order from the High Court. This is an abuse of the process of the court as also a misconceived advice which may have been given to the petitioner to keep on chasing a claim which was abandoned before the Tribunal. 3. The attempt to challenge the communication given to the petitioner by the Central Industrial Security Force by a letter of 29 February, 2000, in fact, became a redundant exercise after the Central Administrative Tribunal had dismissed the case of the petitioner on one occasion by the petitioner not appearing and on the second occasion the petitioner abandoned his claim. 4. The petitioner still chases his claim that he has a right to get an employment on the basis of a plea that he is an adopted son. The Central Industrial Security Force intimated the petitioners foster-mother that the so called adoption papers apparently have been manufactured for the claim. 5. This was ill-advised petition. 6. Dismissed.