RAJ DEO SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Anil Tiwari, Advocate, for respondents. Earlier petitioner had filed writ petition No17072 of 2008, Raj Deo Singh vs. State of U.P. and others; it was captioned as "Public Interest Litigation", wherein this Court on 04.04.2008 passed following order: "1. HEARD Sri Vinay Kumar Srivastava in support of the petition. Sri K.K. Tripathi holding brief of Sri Anil Tiwari appears for respondent No. 2 and 3 and Sri Sanjay Goswami, learned additional Chief Standing Counsel of the State of U.P. appears for the respondent No. 1 and 4.

(2.) THE petitioner makes a grievance that the persons who are not qualified sae appointed/nominated as Principal of the Board of Studies and on the Sports Council of the of the Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Varanasi. the petitioner claims to be qualified in himself.

(3.) THE petition is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty." Petitioner has again filed present writ petition with the following reliefs: "(a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to make appointment/nominate the qualified teachers as the Member of Board of Studies and Secretary of Sports Council as per the Act, Statute and Ordinance of the Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur. (b) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to hold enquiry and pass appropriate order against the unqualified teachers who have been appointed in violation of Act, Statute and Ordinance of the Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur. (c) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to decide the representation dated 20.4.2008 submitted by the petitioner before Your Ex-Lancy Government/Chancellor within stipulated period. (d) to issue any suitable order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. (e) to award cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner." In pith and substance the prayer made in the present writ petition as well as in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner and which was dismissed as aforesaid is the same. Petitioner cannot be permitted to file writ petitions again and again for the same very relief; once in the shape of Public Interest Litigation and secondly in the garb that his personal rights are being infringed. Consequently, writ petition is dismissed.