WA 713/2005 BEFORE THE HON’BLETHE CHIEF JUSTICE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE T.NKSINGH The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 1.7.05 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P(C) No. 338(AP)/2004. Respondent No.3 was appointed as Assistant Director in the Directorate o f Tourism in Arunachal Pradesh. The appellant as well as some others aggrieved by his entry into the Dir ectorate of Tourism, filed writ petitions, being WP(C) No. 328(AP)/02 and WP(C) No.312(AP)/03 challenging his entry. It appears that during the pendency of those writ petitions, respondent No.3 was absorbed in the Directorate of Tourism by an order dated 13.8.03. Altho ugh this order of absorption was brought to the notice of the Court by the writ petitioners, no steps were taken by them to challenge the absorption. Consequently, while dismissing the writ petitions, it was noted that the order o f absorption was not under challenge and therefore it required no interference. The writ petitioners did not seek liberty to challenge the order of abs orption or make any amendment to the writ petition nor was any appeal filed agai nst the final order passed in the writ petitions. A little later, the appellant preferred a writ petition challenging the absorption of respondent No.3 as Assistant Director, Tourism in the Directorate of Tourism in Arunachal Prades h. The second writ petition was rejected by the order under appeal dated 1. 7.05. The learned Single Judge noted the entire facts of the appellant’s case. It was mentioned that no challenge against the absorption of respondent no.3 wa s made earlier and therefore it would not be appropriate to entertain the secon d writ petition on that subject matter. We find no error in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The appe llant allowed the earlier writ petition to continue by default and invited an ob servation from the learned Single Judge that there was no challenge to the absor ption of respondent No.3 in the post of Assistant Director, Tourism. No correct ive steps were taken at the appropriate time. That being the position, the learned Single Judge was right in declining to exercise his discretion in interfering with the absorption of respondent No. 3 as Assistant Director in the second round of litigation. There is no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed.