JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The writ Petitioner/Respondent was appointed on compassionate ground in the year 1990 on daily wage basis. He continued in such appointment up to 1991. In the year 1991, his service was discontinued. In the year 1991, when the Petitioner was discontinued in service, he was directed to appear before the Selection Committee. He appeared before the selection committee which made recommendation in his favour and pursuant to that, when the appointment was not made, Petitioner's mother approached this Court. This Court vide order dated 18.11.1999 directed the Appellant to consider his case. Pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 18.11.1999, the case of the Petitioner was considered and he was offered appointment on 09.07.2001 and he continued in service, However, subsequently, the employer, pursuant to the direction of this Court in the case of Mithilesh Kumar vide W.P.(S) No. 680 of 2008, terminated the services of the writ Petitioner. Being aggrieved by such termination, the writ Petitioner again approached this Court and the learned Single Judge of this Court, vide order dated 16.09.2009, directed the Respondents/Appellants to reinstate the Petitioner/Respondent with 50% back wages. 3. We have heard learned Counsel for the Appellant. 4. The Appellant has only one argument in its armory that pursuant to the direction of this Court in Mithilesh Kumar's case wherein delayed appointment on compassionate ground was held to be not in consonance with the policy of the compassionate appointment, they had terminated the services of the Petitioner and since the other persons, who were removed by the employer pursuant to the directions of this Court in Mithilesh Kumar's case had approached before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and their plea was not accepted, at the instance of the National Institute of Technology, therefore, service of the Petitioner was not liable to be regularized, as per the order of the learned Single Judge and the order of the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent opposed the argument and submitted that it is not the delayed appointment. In the year 1990 itself, the Petitioner was favoured with the order of appointment and he continued in service till 1991 and in 1991, he was directed to appear before the Selection Committee which made recommendation in favour of the Petitioner. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent opposed the argument and submitted that it is not the delayed appointment. In the year 1990 itself, the Petitioner was favoured with the order of appointment and he continued in service till 1991 and in 1991, he was directed to appear before the Selection Committee which made recommendation in favour of the Petitioner. When the recommendation of the Selection Committee was, not accepted by the Appellant-employer, he approached this Court again and pursuant to the direction of this Court, the Petitioner-workman was appointed. 6. In our view the ratio laid down in Mithilesh Kumar's case does not cover, in the facts and circumstances of the case of the writ Petitioner, because it was not a delayed appointment. The right of appointment accrued to the Petitioner in the year 1990 itself and he was in fact appointed and then asked to face a Selection Committee, the select panel recommended his case yet appointment was not made. The Petitioner came to this Court and direction was issued and he was appointed. His services were again dispensed with. Such break of service was uncalled for, it was for no reasons. Such facts were not in the case of Mithilesh Kumar (supra). 7. In this view of the matter, argument of the learned Counsel for the Appellant is not liable to be accepted because it is not a case where the employee came after long period. The employee applied for being appointed within the vicinity of the death in the service. In fact, the workman was appointed and continued in service. Therefore, he was ordered to face selection committee. He did so and the Selection Committee recommended in his favour. The recommendation was not adhered to by the Appellant and, therefore, this Court made a direction in the year 1999. The order of this Court giving direction to the Appellant to consider his case and the Appellant-employer having not challenged the order of this Court, the same has become final. 8. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, law laid down in Mithilesh Kumar's case, cannot decide the fate of this case. 9. In that view of the matter, the appeal is not liable to be entertained and hence, it is dismissed.