IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.} WP. (S) No. WW)? /201 1 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS (1) fr / Sanjay Kumar Nag s/ o shri Jugdhar aged ahout 3O years R/o. Lohndiguda Bandanji Distt. Bastar (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through its Jagdalpur (C.G.) (4) / ’ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Shri Anand Kumar Swi S/o Shri Gopal Singh Aged about 35 years, R/o Shiv Mandir Ward, Jagdalpur, Distt. Jagdalpur (CG) Secretary, Health and family Welfare ' Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, \\ ;€§.§ ..::o":. M" Raipur, (C.G.) (2) Chief Medical And Helth officer office of Chief Medical and Health officer ;E$Iu. .i’D Qt. Q" $3.... V; o §é / Bastar District Jagdalpur (C.G.) (3) Block Medical 85 Health officer, Community Health Centre Pharasgoan Bastar District WW,?§W,W 14) fCyHa—7H75/u mzoo urn-arm mm (Wax) Www ammm E WW§wW §T3ifwm £Wm‘mm SB : Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. 12. 12.201 1 Shri RS. Koshy, counsel fOr the petitioner. Shri Y.S‘ Thakur, Dy.‘ Advocate General for the State] reSpondents 1 to 3 on advance copy. The petitioner has approached this Court aggieved by the order of cancellation of his a pointment. At the outset, learne counSel for the petitioner fairly submitted that earlier, writ petition was filed before the Court challenging process of appo' tment through which the petitioners were selected and appointe and that writ petition was allowed and writ appeal was also d ssed. He however submits that in those matters, the petition were not impleaded as party and they had no notice and‘kno edge. Therefore, the petitioners have now approached this Court y filing this petition challenging the Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that duri g the pendency of the writ petitiOn, orders of appointment were issued on 16/11/2010, which fact was not brought to the notic of the concerned Court by any of the parties. He further submits that this fact was not brought to th knowledge of the appellate Cpurt also. vorder of cancellation of ap ointment. i i e s e 1H zoo m$iiiiw ‘mmm ,mm mm<iahw> mmm V2,, I am afraid, this Con petiFioner. The grounds whi ' " cannot‘be allowed to be raise inquired, it is informed that 1 petition before the Writ Courl WW wm ‘ $aimm .rt cannot come to any aid of the 2h have been raised by‘ the petitioner ;d in a separate petition. Upon being me petitioner has not tiled any review ; or even in the writ appellate Court. to avail such remedy as may be Leaving the petitioner available under the law, this petition is disposed of. Sdl— ,l Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge