“ : Meenalal kashyap s/o Late Bhima Kashyap aged about 24 years R/o. Village Bringpal Post— Pandripani Distt. Bstar (C.G.) HY/ State of Chhattisgarh through its Secretary, Health and family Welfare Department, D. K. S. Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.) (2) ’ Chief Medical And He1th officer office of Chief Medical and Health officer Bastar, Jagdalpur (C.G.) (3)“ Block Medical and Health officer, Community Health Centre Tokapal ,Bastar (C.G.J (4) ”Shri Anand Kumar Swi S/o Shfi Gopal Singh Aged about 35 years, R/o Shiv Mandir Ward, Jagdalpur, Distt. Jagdalpur (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) w.P. (S) No. W1 3K /2o11 f PETITIONER a VERSUS RESPONDENTS Wy ; f WW; m,W Wm I“) fCS/w7q7gé4/éoo mm(§i§a§q) mmm Imamm WW WW $WW 12. 12.201 1 Shri RS. Koshy, couns lfor the petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, D .' Advocate General for the State/ respondents 1 to 3 on advan e copy. w 1 The petitioner has ap' reached this Court aggrieved by the order of cancellation of his a pointment. At the outset, learn counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted’that earlier, writ petition was tiled before the Court challenging process of appo‘ tment through which the petitioners were selected and appointe and that writ petition was allowed and writ appeal was also di missed. He however submits that in those matters, the petitione s were not impleaded as party and they had no notice and kno ledge. Therefore, the petitioners have now approached this Court y filing this petition challenging the order of cancellation'of ap ointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that duri g the pendency of the writ petition, orders of appointment wer issued on 16/ 11/20 16, ”which fact was not brought to the notic of the concerned Court by any of the parties. He further submits that this fact was not brought to the knowiedge of the appeliate C urt also. XI—HC———78 mm mm (W) i WWW v2, I am afraid, this Comrt cannot come to any aid of tha ‘ petitioner. ’l‘he grounds which have been raised by the petitioner “cannot bé‘i'allowed to be raised in a separate petition. Upon being inquired, it is informed that the petitioner has not filed any review petition‘before the Writ Cour“, or even in the writ appellate Court. Leaving the petitionen to avail such remedy as may be available under the law, thist'petition is disposed of. 31m$lf<=ti$‘ mama-HM mm @m #aifcmm Praveen Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge mtzoo