( 1 ) THE petitioner has challenged in this writ petition the order at Annexure-F, dated 18-9-2001, by which he was reverted to the post of T. O. A (G ).

( 2 ) THE petitioner had challenged the very same order before this Court by filing a writ petition in wp. No. 12302/2002, where this Court after entertaining the Writ petition granted an interim order of stay. The said writ petition came to be dismissal for non-prosecution on 22. 7. 2003. Therefore, contending that the said writ petition and the issues involved therein are not decided by the Court and the said writ petition came to be dismissed only for non-prosecution, the present writ petition is filed challenging the very same order. When the Court called upon the learned Counsel for the petitioner to show how this writ petition is maintainable, the learned counsel has relied on three judgments of the Supreme Court. The first judgment is of the constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of DAYARAO and ORS.- v.- STATE of U. P. and ORS. , AIR1961 SC 1457 , [1962 ]1 SCR574 second judgment in the case of SHIVASHANKAR PRASAD SAH and ANR.- v.- BAIKUNTH BATH singh AND ORS. , AIR1969 SC 971 , 1970 (0 )BLJR1 ,