' This petition has been filed against the order of the Service Tribunal, dated 21-1-2003. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that prior to filing of civil miscellaneous application, appeal filed by her has been dismissed on 15-11-2002, therefore, instead of challenging this order before this Court she filed a representation for the correction of the order.
2. We have noted that such representation was not competent before the Tribunal, as after having disposed of the appeal, it has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. Therefore, the application was rightly dismissed vide the impugned judgment.
3. The learned counsel then contended that petitioner had also challenged order, dated 15-11-2002.
It may be noted that this petition was filed on 29-3-2003, therefore, it would be barred by time against the original order of the Tribunal. Surprisingly for seeking condonation of delay no application has been filed. It is to be observed that as the representation filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal after passing Order, dated 15-11-2002 was not competent, therefore, the time for filing of the petition before this Court against this order shall not be arrested and it would continue running against her.
4. Thus, under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the instant petition is not .Competent and the same is dismissed and leave declined. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.