JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 07.07.2011 passed by the learned single Judge in CWP (T) No.3052/2009, whereby the claim of the petitioner (appellant herein) for appointment to the post of Radiographer on regular basis with effect 28.09.2000 was ordered to be dismissed. 2. Certain undisputed facts may be noticed. The appellant is an Ex-serviceman, who prior to his retirement, got himself enrolled with the Sub Regional Employment Officer, Ex-servicemen Employment Cell, HP at Hamirpur for the post of X-Rays Technician/Radiographer. The official respondents conducted a selection in September, 1999 and appointed seven Ex-servicemen as Radiographers, who were given appointment vide order dated 28.09.2000. 3. It appears that in the year 2005 the appellant did approach the learned H.P. Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. (M) No.143/2005, however, he did not question the appointments of the private respondents herein and only claimed the following reliefs:- ? (i) The respondents be directed to notify the vacancies for the post of Radiographers in the State and thereby give an appointment to the applicant being a qualified and trained person; (ii) The orders dated 29.3.2005 and 19.7.2005 at Annexures =PB' and =PD' be quashed and set aside or a supernumerary post or a regular post of Radiographer be created and the applicant be appointed against the said post from the date persons as indicated in the impugned order dated 29.3.2005 at Annexure =PB' have been appointed as Radiographers; (iii) The seniority of the applicant be kept intact for all intents and purposes along with 6 appointed persons as stipulated in Annexure =PB' dated 29th March, 2005'. (iv) To grant to the applicant such other consequential reliefs which the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper in facts and circumstances of the matter.? 4. It is not in dispute that upon closure of the learned Tribunal, the case was transferred to this Court and registered as CWP (T) No.12606/2008 and was ultimately dismissed in default vide order dated 28.12.2012. 5. 4. It is not in dispute that upon closure of the learned Tribunal, the case was transferred to this Court and registered as CWP (T) No.12606/2008 and was ultimately dismissed in default vide order dated 28.12.2012. 5. However, before the dismissal of this petition, the appellant again approached this Court by filing CWP (T) No.3052 of 2009 (out of which the instant appeal has arisen) claiming therein the following reliefs:- ?i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to give appointment to the petitioner against the post of Radiographer on regular basis from the date i.e. 28.9.2000 when the Junior Ex-servicemen (Respondents No.5 to 10) were given appointment vide Annexure P-13 against the post of Radiographer without any requisite qualification and the petitioner was deprived from the appointment although, the petitioner was possessing requisite qualification of Radiographer and experience thereof. ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to give appointment to the petitioner against the post of Radiographer on regular basis as per the interview held by the respondent No.3 on 2.8.2007 as per Annexure P-21 since 6 junior Ex-servicemen have already been given appointment on regular basis as Radiographer by the Respondent-State.? 6. Evidently, the appellant while filing OA (M) No.143/2005 (CWP (T) No.12606/2008) had not questioned the selection of the private respondents and admittedly the appellant has taken no steps to get restored the aforesaid writ petition and is, therefore, clearly precluded from questioning their appointments in view of the principles contained in Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. 7. As regards the subsequent selection, the interest of appellant has been adequately safeguarded, whereby he has been directed to be nominated and thereafter considered for appointment as per law, as is evident from the judgment passed by the learned writ Court, relevant portion whereof is extracted below:- ?3. With regard to prayer (ii), respondents have admitted the fact that pursuant to interview letter dated 17.7.2007 (Annexure P-21), petitioner was selected and his name is placed at Sr.No.3 of the panel. However, since no posts for general category candidates were available, appointment letter could not be issued to him. Confusion arose for the reason that posts were in fact required to be filled up by reserved category candidates. However, since no posts for general category candidates were available, appointment letter could not be issued to him. Confusion arose for the reason that posts were in fact required to be filled up by reserved category candidates. Nonetheless it is the respondent's categorical stand, as is evident from affidavit dated 16.12.2009 filed by the Sub Regional Employment Officer, HP Ex-Servicemen Employment Cell, Hamirpur that as and when posts of Radiographer shall be notified by respondent No.2, petitioner's name shall be nominated against the same on its turn.? 8. Having observed so, though we find no merit in this appeal, however, it would be relevant to note that when the case was taken up for hearing on 26.09.2016, learned Deputy Advocate General made available to us a communication dated 26.09.2016 which indicates that the appellant was not only given appointment, but even joined as Radiographer at PHC, Churru on 29.09.2012. However, he thereafter submitted three months' resignation notice on 29.04.2013 and resigned from service with effect from 01.06.2013. In such circumstances, we have no hesitation to conclude that conduct of the appellant, to say the least, is not above board and in case he was not really interested in job, he ought not to have wasted the precious time of the Court. 9. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their costs. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.