( 1 ) THE appellant - petitioner Shri Manhar K Darji was appointed as Legal Assistant in the respondent Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation on 24. 05. 1999 on probation for a period of one year. Before the expiry of period of his probation, his services came to be terminated by an order dated 16. 05. 2000. It was challenged by him by way of special civil application no. 5004 of 2000 which was admitted on 06. 07. 2000 by the learned single Judge of this Court and by a speaking order ad-interim relief granted earlier was confirmed. However, while confirming the ad-interim relief against his termination, it was clarified by Her Lordship that it shall be open to the respondent - Corporation to make independent assessment of the petitioners performance and to make suitable orders in respect of termination of the period of probation. In pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 06. 07. 2000 passed by Ms. R. M. Doshit, J in special civil application no. 5004 of 2000, the respondent Corporation made independent assessment of the petitioners performance and having found him not fit, terminated his services on the expiry of period of his probation by an order dated 27. 02. 2001 (Annexure `c to the main petition ). It was initially challenged by the appellant - petitioner by way of special civil application no. 2397 of 2001 before this Court. However, no interim relief was granted in his favour this time and simple order of notice was passed. In response to that notice, reply affidavit was filed by the respondent Corporation in that petition and rejoinder to which also was filed as stated at the bar by the learned counsel for the parties. Be that as it may. When that special civil application no. 2397 of 2001 was placed before another learned single Judge (M. S. Shah, J) on 04. 09. 2002, learned counsel for the appellant - petitioner sought permission to withdraw that petition, as, the petitioner was desirous of pursuing the representation made by him on 17. 04. 2001 to the Municipal Commissioner, Ahmedabad against his fresh order of termination dated 27. 02. 2001. Accordingly, permission was granted and Municipal Corporation, Ahmedabad was directed to decide his representation as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one month from the date of the receipt of the order (Annexure `d to the main petition ). In pursuance of the order dated 04. 09. 2002 passed by M. S. Shah, J in special civil application no. 2397 of 2001, the Municipal Commissioner of the respondent Corporation rejected his representation by speaking order running into four type pages (Annexure `e ).

( 2 ) AGGRIEVED of the aforesaid order of rejection of his representation, the appellant - petitioner once again approached this court by way of special civil application no. 1848 of 2003 which was dismissed in limine by another learned single Judge (Jayant Patel, J) by his order dated 25. 02. 2003. The same is challenged in this appeal by the appellant - petitioner.

( 3 ) PRELIMINARY objection was raised by the learned counsel Shri Shukla for entertaining this appeal on the ground that his earlier writ petition i. e. special civil application no. 2397 of 2001 challenging his termination order dated 27. 02. 2001 passed by the respondent Corporation was dismissed as withdrawn by M. S. Shah, J on 04. 09. 2002 without reserving liberty to the appellant petitioner to file fresh petition challenging his impugned order of termination and the order passed by the authority on his representation. In support of his submissions, Mr. Shukla relied on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in case of Avinash Nagra Vs. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and others, reported in (1997)2 SCC 534 wherein the Honble Supreme Court has held that where the first writ petition challenging the order of termination of service was withdrawn without grant of liberty by the court to file second writ petition, then the second writ petition for that very purpose was not maintainable, as, it was b