( 0-^-t ^^^ ^ © IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) WRIT PETITION fS) N0. M-^l OF 2008 / PETITIONER : Awadhesh Kumar, son of Surendra Kumar, aged about 34 years, Resident of Village and Post Doda, Tahsil Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS vyy. vS^/ ,^^y <^-\^ !<y- ^. ^r^ \\Y O^) / ^ H¥' ^f- ^^ ^(^•'CT •fe j?"y-r ^ ^f"^ wv- VERSUS 1. The Commissioner, Regional Guarantee, Development Commissioner Office, Raipur (C.G.) ^ 2. The Collector and District Coordinator, Rojgar Guarantee Scheme, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 5. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Dvijendra Singh Thakur, Son of Govindra Singh Thakur, aged about 29 years, Resident of Village Kohila, Village Panchayat Doda, Tahsil Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ® WRIT PF^TTUM l INDFR ARTIC' F ^fi OF THF CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA HiGH COURT OF CHHATTtSGARH : BILA8PUR WR!TpETmQNJ'S)_NQ,7131._OF2008 PETmONER Awadhesh Kumar RESPONDENTS Versus The Commissioner & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitiution of India) Single Bench : Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri P.P. Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panei Lawyer for the State. Shrs MX. Sinha, Advocate forthe re^pondent No.6. ORDER(ORAU (Passed on th.'s 10th day of SVIarch, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Chaltenge in this petition is to the order dated 13/02/2008 (Annexure P1) whereunder the respondent No.6 was appointed on the post of Rojgar Sahayak on contract basis for a periexi of one year, wherein it was cleariy stated that the temi of aB^pointment would come to an end immediatejy after comptetion of cne year. 3. The petitioner has preferred eariier writ petition before this Court for the same reiief being W.P.(S) No.4771/2008 (AwacBTesh Kumar v. The Commissioner, Reygar Guarantee Devetopmwft Commissiwier QfRce & Qthers}. This Court by order dated 4th September, 2008 (Annexure P/8) after hearing ali the parties, granted (iterty to the petitioner to make a representation, which was directed to be considered within a period of four weeks, in aecordanoe wlth law and on its own mersts. 4. In pursuance thereof, a representation was made by the petltioaer and the same was disposed of by the Chief Executive Officer by order dated 27/11/2008 (Annexure P/9) on the reasons that havir^ taken into Gonsideration the marks obtained in theoretical papers in t—;_ .,—^ ;y^'%. $ •<i-...-,^\^ ^^^ "2 class 12th, the petitjoner was found place at senaS No.2. Thus, the appointment of the respondent No.6 was held to be proper. The petitioner without chalienging the order passed in the representation, has fjled the present petition seektng the same relief, as sought for by the petitioner in eariier writ petition being W.P.(S) No.4771/2008. St is made ctear that no liberiy was granted to question the same reiief, which had aiready been disposed of earlier by this Court and there is no challenge to theorder passed in the representation, Thus, the writ petition is not maintainable. Even ottierwise, since the appointment was for a period of one year onty, which has come to an end on 12/02/2009, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. AccordJngly, the writ petition is dismissed. —— Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Arun