speaking one, which respondent has passed in terms of directions issued on 4th August, 2017. Impugned order of 3rd October, 2017 (Annexure P-1) takes note of the factual position and concludes that petitioner being a departmental candidate was fully aware of the display of the select list and in fact, petitioner had participated in the second recruitment process in the year 2010 and that petitioner cannot claim parity with Ankit Kumar and others as they were vigilant and had sought recourse to law in time. 2. Learned senior counsel for petitioner assails impugned order (Annexure P-1) on the ground that petitioner was unaware of the writ petition and LPA filed by Ankit Kumar and others and for the first time, petitioner came to know about the case filed by Ankit Kumar and others in December, 2015 and had then moved an application for impleadment before the Supreme Court in SLP filed by respondent against the order of Division Bench directing respondent herein to appoint Ankit Kumar and others as Managers (Electronic). It is submitted by learned senior counsel for petitioner that since liberty was granted to petitioner by Supreme Court to avail of the remedies, therefore, W.P. (C) 6665/2017 was filed, which stood disposed of vide order of 4th August, 2017 (Annexure P-14) and so, on the ground of delay, petitioner cannot be discriminated and has to be treated at par with Ankit Kumar and others, who have been given appointment letters by first respondent.
