WP(C) 5690/2010 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY The petitioner has approached this Court a second time seeking direction for con sidering his appointment against 10% quota, available for wards of retired schoo l teachers. On 19th October, 2001 in W P (C) No.7562/2001 direction for considering the peti tioner’s case against the 10% quota, was already given by the Court and the reas on why the petitioner has approached this Court a second time is allegedly on ac count of the fact that, his case was not considered because of ban on appointmen t. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has referred to the communi cation dated 12th April, 1995 (Annexure-E). But in the writ petition, there is no averment to suggest that a ban on appointm ent is continuing for last 15 years. Furthermore, appointment under 10% quota sc heme can be considered only on the basis of the selection and there is nothing t o show that the petitioner is a selected candidate. In view of above and considering that a direction was already given by the Court earlier in favour of the petitioner, I am of the considered view that similar d irection should not be issued a second time on practically the same cause of act ion. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.