CWP No.37/2005. 16.09.2008 Present: Mr Ramakant Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.R.K.Bawa, Advocate General with Mr.J.K.Verma, Deputy A.G., for respondents No.1 and 2. None for respondent No.3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Advocate General. The petitioner had filed one Original Application No.1193 of 1992, the same was decided by the Tribunal by a judgment and order dated 22nd September, 1992 wherein a direction was issued to the State Government to treat the Original Application to be representation. With these observations, the Original Application was decided. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the State Government by an order dated 19th December, 1992 after considering the representation of the petitioner rejected the same. Thereafter the petitioner filed another fresh Original Application on 19th April, 1993. The petitioner, for the reasons best known to him, choose not to challenge the order passed on the representation of the petitioner dated 19th December, 1992. However, he made all those prayers which actually were made before the Tribunal while filing the first Original Application, which were decided on 22nd September, 1992. It has also been indicated on behalf of the petitioner that on 2nd April, 1993, petitioner was reverted from the post of Senior Assistant to the post of Clerk. However, the same was not challenged before the Tribunal. In light of the fact that the petitioner’s prayer in the second Original Application is the same which was in the first …2… application and the order passed on the representation by the State Government was also not challenged before the Tribunal. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the second Original Application, which now has been converted into writ petition, is not maintainable. While challenging the judgment passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner has made certain other prayers which were not before the Tribunal. The petitioner cannot make other fresh prayers which were not made before the Tribunal. In light of the above, no interference is warranted under the writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ( Jagdish Bhalla ), C.J. September 16, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ), J. (soni)