Amareshwar Sahay, J. - (1.) HEARD the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner and others moved this Court earlier in W.P.(S) No. 6474 of 2004 seeking regularization of their service on the ground that they were working on daily wages on Class - IV since 1990 but they have not been regularised. This Court, by order dated 15.12.2004, as contained in Annexure -5 to the writ petition, disposed of the writ petition by observing that this Court cannot issue mandamus directing regularisation of services and observed that if the sanctioned posts are vacant, the respondents shall take steps for making regular appointment and in that event the past experience of the petitioners shall be given due consideration and also relaxation in their age. The petitioner submits that pursuant to the said order, they filed representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau and the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, by order dated 04.08.2005 as contained in Annexure -6 rejected the prayer of the petitioner and others for regularisation of their services. It is further stated that against this rejection of representation for regularisation, the petitioner and others filed an appeal before the Commissioner, which is still pending.
(3.) IN view of the fact that the claim for regularisation was already negatived by this Court in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner and, therefore, for the same relief this writ petition cannot be entertained.;