VINEET SARAN, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Sameer Sharma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents and have perused the record.
(2.) THE petitioner claims that he was engaged as a driver on contract basis in the year 1997 and he was continuously been working as such and hence by means of this writ petition he has prayed that instead of payment being made under the terms of the contract, he should be paid the minimum pay scale as admissible to the post of driver and also be regularized in service on the vacant post of driver. Sri Sameer Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondents, has pointed out that the petitioner has earlier, through the same counsel and on similar facts, filed a writ petition praying for extension of the age limit and permission to apply for the post of driver in response to an advertisement issued by the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation on 28 -10 -2004. It has thus been contended that the second writ petition on the same facts, although may be for different prayers, would not be maintainable.
(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, in my view, the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for in this writ petition, besides the fact that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non -disclose of filing of an earlier writ petition No. 48160 of 2004 by the petitioner on similar facts.;