JUDGMENT : Petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a direction to the respondents to conduct a re-medical examination of the petitioner and to consider his case for his appointment. 2. Heard Sri S.Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The petitioner was initially appointed under the respondents as a casual labour on 07.08.1996. He along with several other casual employees were subsequently retrenched. 4. Later, by the directions of the higher authorities of the respondents issued on 31.07.1996, the retrenched casual employees were sent for medical examination. Out of a total number of 429 such candidates, the Medical Board had found 426 candidates medically fit and three, as unfit. The petitioner was one of the candidates found unfit by the Medical Board. 5. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the report of the Medical Board, had prayed for his re-medical examination, but his prayer was refused. 6. Against the order of refusal, the petitioner filed an original application vide A.O. No. 298/1998 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi. The original application was dismissed by the Tribunal. 7. Against the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner filed a writ application before this Court vide W.P.(S) No. 3228 of 2005. The writ application was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 02.02.2006 with an observation that in the circumstances, no relief can be granted to him and with a further observation that the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and by the High Court, will not stand in the way of the petitioner in the matter of future appointment, if he is medically found fit. 8. The petitioner thereafter filed a representation before the concerned authorities of the respondents to refer him for re-medical examination, but the same was turned down and hence the present writ application. 9. The petitioner’s contention is that the South Eastern Railway through its D.P.O., Ranchi Division vide Memo dated 12.11.2007 has invited candidates for their re-medical examination but such privilege has been denied to the petitioner. 10. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, would explain that the petitioner was earlier though employed as casual employee as Monsoon Patrolman in the year 1997, he was retrenched from service. Later, all such retrenched casual employees were referred to the Medical Board for their respective medication examination. 10. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, would explain that the petitioner was earlier though employed as casual employee as Monsoon Patrolman in the year 1997, he was retrenched from service. Later, all such retrenched casual employees were referred to the Medical Board for their respective medication examination. The petitioner was not found medically fit and therefore he could not gain employment while others did gain such employment. 11. In the light of the fact stated, the petitioner cannot have a right to claim his re-medical examination only on the ground that he was earlier employed as a casual employee 12. It also appears that a liberty has already been given by the order of this Court in the earlier writ application to the petitioner to apply against any vacancy arising under the respondents. As per the statements contained in the counter affidavit of the respondents, the vacancies have not been advertised as yet. 13. There being no merit in this writ application, the same is dismissed.