WP(C) 6138/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I A ANSARI HON’BLE MR JUSTICE C R SARMA Heard Mr. N. Dhar, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, and Mrs. R. Bora, le arned Central Government counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the facts of this case and the law, relevant thereto, are wholly covered by the order, da ted 16.12.2010, passed by a Division Bench of this Court, in WP(C) No. 5316/2010 , whereby the said writ petition has been dismissed on the ground that the said writ petition was found devoid of merit. Though an attempt has been made by Mr. Dhar, learned counsel for the pet itioner, to show that the case of the present writ petitioner is different from that of Sri Himangshu Paul, who was the writ petitioner in the said writ petitio n, namely, WP(C) 5316/2010, we, having minutely examined the issue, raised in th e present writ petition, find that there is no contemporaneous material on recor d to show that the present petitioner, at any point of time, on having been offe red the post, which he claims to have been offered to him, had conveyed his acce ptance thereof. In no way, therefore, we find that the case of the present peti tioner is different from the one, which was considered and disposed of by the ju dgement and order, dated 16.12.2010, aforementioned. We see no reason, therefor e, to take a view different from the one, which was taken in the said writ petit ion, namely, WP(C) No. 5316/2010. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, this writ petition stands d ismissed in terms of the observations made, and the reasons assigned, in the jud gement and order, dated 16.12.2010, passed in WP(C) No. 5316/2010 aforementioned .