M.M. Kumar; C.J.:- The instant appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment and order dated 14.03.2014 rendered by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the petition filed by the appellant, holding that there was no merit in the writ petition. 2. It is appropriate to mention that the petitioner-appellant was appointed as Cashier-cum-Clerk in the State Bank of India and was posted at SBI Main Branch Srinagar on 07.08.1991. He was to remain on probation for a period of six months and his services were liable to be terminated within the period of probation by giving him one months notice or salary in lieu thereof without any reason. His services were terminated on 28.01.1992 i.e. within the period of probation. In other words the services of the petitioner were terminated within the period of probation as his work and conduct was not found satisfactory. 3. The appellant filed SWP no. 188/1992 in this High Court which, on the directions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, was transferred to Delhi High Court. The petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench of Delhi High Court and the same was dismissed, holding that the services of the petitioner was lawfully terminated during the period of probation on account of his unsatisfactory work and conduct. Thereafter the appellant preferred an SLP against the judgment and order of Delhi High Court along with an application seeking condonation of delay. Hon'ble the Supreme Court had dismissed the SLP on 20.11.2000 on the ground that it was inordinately delayed. The appellant thereafter filed another petition namely, SWP no. 605/2009 in this Court seeking disposal of his representation by the respondents. A learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 10.04.2009 disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider petitioners representation on its own merits. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant at some length we are unable to appreciate the endeavor of the appellant to re-open the issue after availing the remedy upto Hon'ble the Supreme Court. In fact it is complete misuse of the process of the Court and we were inclined to impose costs, however, keeping in view that the appellant is not in employment we stay our hands and do not impose any costs. 5. As a sequel to the above discussion this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. __