IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR J^0 Misc. Civil Case No. Applicant IPETITIQNER) (Non-applicant) RESPONDENTS SINfiLE BENCH Huniendra Kumar ChandrEikar VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh SE Anr. APPLICATION FOR RECALL of ORDERJ3ATED 9-3-2005 PASSED IN W.P. N0.574/2005 AND RESTORATION ( WRIT PETIT_ON N0 574/2005 k 1 XI-HC-78 3(1^1 q)((^?IW cwraii^TaiiiN; ^ST^nqRTlT, <6'rflwi<»,Kwwy . M-d- G 1^0. Wqcll sh*11<»> ^ 200^- sn^wI^B (yil^si^ff) (f'> CTdTWHfelsn^T 11.12.2006 5Rraf?pfrT wRfr'ff te<^ ^serc Stisil^iran^T Shri Ashok Das Vaishbav, counsel fcr tfae apolicant. Shri G.K.Beriwal, Dy. lAdvocate General for the State. Heard. Shri Vaishaav submiljs that fhis M.C.C. is filed for recaUuig the order dated 9.3.2005. passed in W.P. No. 574/2005. He submits that the said writtpetition No. 574/2005 relates to the promotion, whereas, the O.A.No.678/1998 was relatine to the stav of fresh recruitment. His | submission is that on 9.3.2005. bv mistake, it could not toe merjtioned that fhis petition is a petition of different nature than the orifeiaal application No. 678 /1998, which has been renuiubered as W. m view of fhe above, this M t>>.(s) No. 2626/2005. He submits that C.C. mav be disposed ofand a libertv may be graiited to the apdlicant to file a fi-esh writ petition ui relation to fhe sTibiect niatt^r of his promotion, ofherwise. in view of this order, passed in W.fl technical difficulties ia filuig '.No. 574/2005, there would be manv ^ subsequent petition for promotion. In view of aU this, helpravs for withdrawal of this M.C.C . with a libertv to fUe another t>etition pertaming to the promotion of fhe aoolicaat. In the opinion of this Oourt, fhere is no necessitv of graatme sucb a Uberiy to the applic^nt because so far as the matter of proinotion is concemed. it is fe recurring cause ofaction aad even a subsequeat petitioa pertainu^g to fhe promotiou is laauitauiable ia the changed circumstances. ^loreover, when the petition itsetfjsas-— 1~ll XI-HC-78 sn^T^R-fi'd (WSn^Tstilich ^&Z4u;f^ mH^TShtTrai 3^ •*{WM<<, vi^\w\e, Rioiuy ..OA:P.;.C.:.I.^.P.. w^ 200y 3li^l qaf) (>iciia's«<«T) S^ITW (rfN'sn^r "L- *wf<-t<fl'i >iii<iT^'teiA<Fai«i< ^; a.lRpT an^r not disinissed on inerits antl there is no order on nients aaainst fhe appUcaat, the order passe4 in the earUer W.P.No.574/2005 is not operative as res hiSicata. The oetition has no nlient. The same is disniissed. Sd/- SunU Kumar Sinha Judge