1N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) w.P. (S) No. TM lg /201 1 v/ PETITIONER : Shomaru Ram Kashyap s/o Shri Milku Ram Kashyap aged about 31 1 x years R/o. Village Rajur Post Tokapal Jagdalpur Distt. Bastar (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS (1) (/State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Health and family Welfare Department, D.K.S. BhaWan, .Raipur, (C.G.) t /, (2) Chief Medical And Helth officer office of Chief Medical and Health officer Bastar, Jagdalpur (C.G.) (3) Block Medical and Health officer, Community Health Centre Badekilepal ,Bastar (C.G.) Shri Anand Kumar Swi S/o Shri Gopal Singh Aged about 35 years, R/ o Shiv Mandir Ward, Jagdalpur, Distt. Jagdalpur (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA wp@wo Wag” WI oo mm (Wt?) WWW?“ WWI¥f§éW ammm 3B : Hon’bie Shri Manlndra McKam Shrivasta‘va . Q94. 2-2911 § Shri F'.S. Kbshy, counsei for he petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Pan i Lawyer for the State / respondents 1 to 3 on advance copy. The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the order of canceiiation of his appointment. At the outset, learned counse‘i for the petitioner fairly submitted that earlier, writ petition was fried before the Co rt chaiienging process of appointment through which the petitioners were seiect d and appointed and that writ petition was allowed and writ appeal was also ismissed. He however submits that in those matters the petitioners were not i pleaded as party and they had no notice and knowledge. Therefore, the petitio ers have now approached this Court by filing this petition challenging the order o cancellation of appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that duri g the pendency of the writ petition, orders of appointment were issued on ‘I6I11 2010 which fact was not brought to the notice of the concerned Court by any oft parties. He further submits that this fact was not brought to the knowledge of the appellate Court also. i am afraid. this Court ca not come to any aid of the petitioner. The grounds which have been raised b the petitioner, cannot be allowed to be raised in a separate petition. Upon bein inquired, it is informed that the petitioner has not med any review petition befor the Writ Court or even in the writ appellate Court. Leaving the petitioner to av ii such remedy as may be availabie under the law, this petition is disposed off. Sd/- _»Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge