IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WP. (S) No. ‘?h‘>§ /201 1 / PETITIONER : Kundan Singh Negi s/o Shri Sonu Ram Negi aged about 31 years R/o. G-6 Sakesh Colony Jagdalpur Distt. Bastar (C.G.) VERSUS k«-‘gAV . RS ESPONDENT §K State of Chhattisgarh, through its ' W Secretai‘y, Health and family Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Rajpur, (C.G.) (2) Chief Medical And Helth officer office of Chief Medical and Health officer Bastar, Jagdalpur(C.G.) " (37y Block Medical and Health officer, Community Health Centre Makadi ,Bastar (C.G.) (4} Shri Anand Kumar Swi S/o Shri Gopal Singh Aged about 35 years, R/o Shiv Mandir Ward, Jagdalpur, Distt. Jagdalpur (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 THE CONSTITUTION OF \% _ .ii... __. __ INDIA\ca j llf I XI-HC»—7 8 WW, Wan—a5, W3? Wm w pCvmwg$2IOO mm (Wu) a w3H&#$ ama§$$ $ WWW WWW ’WW é; 31%;: m SB : .HoWble $hri Wianindra’fWoha I $hrivastava‘ J. 09:1 2-2911 3 ,g ShriP.S.Koshy,counselfor epetitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Paneil Lawyer for the State i respondents 1 to 3 on advance copy. The petitidner has approached this Court aggrieved by the order of cance’iiatioh of‘his' appointment. At the outset, learned counsei for the petitioner fairly submitted that eariier, writ petition was fried before the Co rt chaiienging process of appointment through which the petitioners were setect d and appointed and that writ petition was aliowed and writ appeai was also ismisseci. He however submits that in those matters the petitioners were not i pleaded as party and they had no notice and knowledge. Therefore, the petiti r s have now approached this Court by filing this petition challenging the order o cancellation of appointment. Learned counsei for the petitioner submits that duri g the pendency of the writ petition, orders of appointment were issued on 16i11 010 which fact was not brought to the notice of the concerned Court by any of th parties. He further submits that this fact was not brought to the knowiedge of the ppeiiate Court aiso. The grounds which have been raised b the petitioner, cannot be aiiowed to be raised in a separate petition. Upon bei inquired,- it is informed that the petitioner has not fried any review petition befor the Writ Court or even in the writ appeiiate Court. Leaving the petitioner to av ii such remedy as may be available under the law, this petition is disposed off. (Mattindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge l am afraid, this Court can ot come to any aid of the petitioner. Sd/— o r n