JUDGMENT

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

1.The petitioner contended that he was working as GDS MD, Kureepuzha as per the appointment granted by the second respondent taking into consideration his earlier services as casual labourer and on his coming out second in merit in the selection for the post of EDDA, Thangassery. It is also contended that he had completed 240 days as casual labourer prior to his adhoc appointment to the post of EDDA, Thangassery entitling his preference for EDA (GDS) appointment in terms of Director General posts letter dated 6.6.1988. It is also his case that the respondent had appointed other persons who are similarly situated to him as ED agents and that he is being discriminated against. The Tribunal, after adverting to the entire materials on record, WPC.7760/10 noticed that the status of the applicant was subject matter of O.A.51/02 and the Tribunal, on 18.8.2004, held that he was appointed without any selection process. The Tribunal also noted that the said decision was confirmed by this Court in W.P(C).32024/04, however, with certain observations. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for by him in t