HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.No. 229SQOOO CORAM: Hon'bte ShriS.R.Nayak, Chief Jusfee & Hon'bte Shri D.R.Deshmukh, J. PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS: 1. Rambabu Sharma, aged about 25 years, son of Shri Ram Sihasan Sharma, r/o B-307 Ashok Enclave, Bhopal, at present resident ofDhamtari(MP) 2. RajeshKumar Dinkar, aged about 29 years, son of Shri Udanlal Dinkar, r/o C&urt Road, Budha Mahadeo Ward, Kavrardha, at present r/o Dhamtari (MP). 3. Ku. Neeta Deshraj, aged about 26 years, daughter of Shri Mohanial Deshraj, r/o vilfage Bhatgaon, Moenabasti, Djstt. Raipur, presently residing at Dhamtari (MP) 4. Shyam Kumar Tiwari, aged aKout 29 years, son crf Shri Manoharlal Tiwari, rto Purana Sartencfa Shivghat, Subhadrakunl, Koni Road, Bilaspur, at present residing at Dhamten (MP) Versus 1. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Through the Secretary, Govemment of Madhya Pradesh, Home (Police) Department, Mantrafaya,. VallabhBhawaliBhopal, (MP) 2. The Superintendent of Police, Dhamtari, Tahsil and District Dhamteri (MP) 3. Ku. Kaoshalya, aged about 21 years, daughter of Purshottam Das, by occupation Steno, Superintendent of Poiice Office, Dhamatari <MP) 4. Sharad Kumar Verma, aged about 28 years, son of Pooranial Verma, Asstt. Sub Inspector, (M) Office ot Superintendent of Poiics, Dhamtori (MP) 5. Ku. Laxmi Meravl, aged about 18 years, daughter of Shambhulal Meravi, posted in the ofnce of Superlntendent of| Pollce, Dhamtari, Tahsil and District Dhamlari (MP). 6. The M.P.Administrative Tribunal. Sench at Raipur, Through its Registrar,Raipur(MP). p=y i:^: ^y^M^I^^^^NsM ^^|t>i ^ Shri Rajeev Shrtvastava, leamed counsel for the Petitioners. Shri Yashwant SinghThakur, Searned G.A forthe Respondents No.1 &2.. ORAL ORDER (Passed on U.08.200S) The following ora! order of the Court was passed by S. R. NAYAK, C.J. initiafly the petitioner No.1 was appointed to the post of Stenographer and Petitioners No.2 to 4 to the post of Assistant Sub- Inspectors purely on ad hoc basis in ths estabtishmsnt of the Superintendent of Police, Dhamtari, the second respondent herein. vide order dated 6.2.99 with condition that their services are purely temporary and they could be terminated at anytime, after giving them a month's notice or in lieu thereof by paying a month's salary.- White the petitioners were serving as Stenographer and Assistant Sub-lnspectors, the second respondent passed separate orders on 19.5.99 terminating the services of the petitionsrs on the ground that thsir services were no longer required. Thereafterwards, the second respondent issued employment notification on 27.12.1999 calling for applications for the post of Stencgrapher as we!! as Assistant Sub-lnspectors. The petitioners No.2 to 4 and respondents No.3 to 5 and severa! others qualified to apply for those posts, apptied for the posts. The second respondent issued call tetters on 5.1.2000 for interview. !S appears that in the meanwhite, the petitioners instityted Original Application No.365/1999 before the M.P.Adminish-ative Tribunal, Raipur Bench (for short the TribunaQ cailing in question She vaiidity of the order of the second respondent dated 19.5.1999 cancelting itheir appointments. At Shis stage iteelf, it needs to be noticed that She second respondent after subiecting the petitioners and others to interview and viva voce test prescribed under She Regulation, selected and appointed respondsnte No.3 to 5 herein as Assistant Sub-lnspectors. The sefection B 'M. andappointment of respondente No.3 to 5 remained unchallenged till date elther before the TribunaS or before this Court. If this is the fact situation. we have more than one good and weighty reasons to dismiss this writ petition in llmine without going into the merits of the matter. Unless the selection and appointments of the respondents No.3 to-5 are successfully challenged and their appointments are set aside, no effective relief could be granted to the petitioners. The sscond reason is Shat the petitloners, particuSarly petitioners No.2 to 4 by their own conduct, are not entitled to any discretionary relief under Articte 226 of the Constitution of india at the hands of this Court. We say ffiis, bscause, after their appointments were terminated by fhe second respondenS by resorting to the powere reserved under the contract appointment as far back as on 19.5.1999, the petitioners, wtthout protest and demur, in response to the fresh advertisement issued by the second rsspondent calling for apptications for appointment to the post of SSenographer and Assistant Sub-lnspector, applied for the posts, participated in the selection process, appeared for w'va yoce and interview test and since tftey are not selected and appointed to the post to which they have appiied, now thsy cannot be pennitted to mgke any grievance. Thirdly, the vaiidity of the selection and appointment of She respondents No.3 to 5 cannot be gone into by this Court under Articie 226 of Constitution of India in the firet instance, in view of the judgment of Apex Court in L.Chandra Kuniar v. Union of India and Others . if the seiection and appointment of the respondents No.3 to 5 are irregular and illegal on any permissible ground, the petitioners shouid work out their lega! remedies, in the first instance, by instituting Origina! 1. (1994)53cc539 b -4 t"; B ^tl- Appiication before the Tribunal, and fhey cannot straightaway assail Uie same either directly or indirectty before this Court. Above al!, the setection and appointment of the respondents No.3 to 5 are noS assailed in the present writ petition. 2. For these reasons, we should say that ie writ petition filed before this Court is totaily misconceived and not maintainable. i&WM<?^t ") 3. Writpetition.istherefore.dismissed. Nocosts. Sd/- Chief Justice u.p^4:bDeshmukh judge Dilip ^^f*^lf"^-'. ^T~^.'^'^d^ *- '"T~?: