if C? 1N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) w.P. (S) No. 3L! ‘}K} 12011 PETITIONER : Satya Narayan Morya S/o shri Bojaram MOIya, agcd about 29 years R/o. Lohndiguda Gandiya Distt. Bastar(C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretaty, Health and family Welfare Department, D.K.S. ' Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.) Chief Medical And Helth officer, office ofChief Medical and Health officer Q‘ ‘?‘ Bastar District Jagda1pur (C.G.) (3) K Block Medical & Health officer, Community Health Centre Lohndiguda Bastar District Jagdalpur (C.G.) (4) Shri Anand Kumar Swi S/o Shri Gupal Singh Aged about 35 years, R/o Shiv Mandir Ward, Jagdalpur, Distt. Jagdalpur (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA g I @ 3a WW, @Wna 133W ummm'" 31mm (ugciwKu) . ma??? 11m??? v§ Fgréi Tm a? mu 311%?! J y ’bie Shri Manind Mohan Shrivastava. . 12.12.2G11 Shri P.S. Koshy, coun el for the petitioner‘ Shri Y.S. ThakurA .‘ Advocate General for the State/ respondents 1 to 3 on adv ce copy. The petitioner has a preached this Court agg‘ieved by the order of cancellation of-his ppointment. At the outset, le mwm‘ ammm mmmmam 3 : Ho $ n d counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that earlier, wrt petition was tiled before the Court challenging process of app intment through which the petitioners were selected and appoint d and that writ petition was allowed and writ appeal was also d smissed. He however submits that in those matters, the petitio rs were not impleaded as party and they had no notice and kno ledge. Therefore, the petitioners have now approached this Cou by filing this petition challenging the order of cancellation of a pointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that d ‘ng the pendency of the writ. petition, orders of appointment we e issued on 16/ 11/20 1a,. which fact was not brought to the noti e of the concerned Court by any of the parties. He further submit that this fact was not brought to the knowledge of the appellate ourt also. . rh , T e h XLHC 78 3am, Wm, @ W3: ' I am afraid; this C01 ‘ petitioner. The grounds W111 cannot be allowed to be rais‘ inquired, it is informed that petition before the Writ Cour Leaving the petitioner to avail such remedy as may be available under the law, .thisii .v Praveen 1rt cannot come to any aid of the ch have been raised by the petitioner ed in a separate petition. Upon being the petitioner has not filed any review t or even in the writ appellate Court petition is disposed of. Sdl- Maaindra MOha Judge n ShrivastaVa Wm E1200 mma3i3a§m ammm ammwias Wmm .r 2’ Wmawm ataifaqm