1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4361/2009 Prakash vs State of Raj. & Anr. DATE OF ORDER : - 4.5.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. PS Bhati, for the petitioner. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner approached this court by preferring SBCWP No.4539/2007 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 5th May, 2008. The said writ petition was decided following the judgment delivered in the case of Ashok Kumar Dayma Vs. State of Raj. & Anr. (SBCWP No.3656/2007). The petitioner aggrieved against the order of dismissal of his writ petition dated 5th May, 2008, preferred D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.277/2009. The said special appeal was got withdrawn by the petitioner on 1st April, 2009 on the ground that petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition and appeal so as to prefer another writ petition. With this liberty, the petitioner has approached again to this Court and contended that the petitioner's whose age 2 should have been relaxed by the respondents by exercising powers under Rule 48 has been denied the relief of relaxation in age but subsequent to petitioner's filing writ petition and subsequent development which happened on 30.1.2009 when the respondents relaxed the age of five candidates and treated the petitioner discriminated, therefore, the petitioner has filed this present writ petition. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the facts of the case. It is no doubt that petitioner withdrew the special appeal from the Division Bench with liberty to file appeal, but facts reveal that petitioner applied for the post in pursuance of the advertisement dated 9th April, 2007 and for the same relief, which petitioner is seeking on the ground of parity but on other grounds in earlier round of litigation, was unsuccessful and this Court following the earlier judgments as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the petitioner cannot be given any relief then the cause of action which originally accrued to the petitioner came to an end by the dismissal of the said writ petition and petitioner's contention now only on the ground that he was entitled to benefit on the basis of parity as same 3 benefit has been given to some candidates named in the Annex.7 dated 30.1.2009 is concerned, it is clear that each case is required to be considered for the age relaxation. The petitioner once failed to get the age relaxation, I do not find that now the petitioner can get any relief in the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition of the petitioner is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-