Judgment :- 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the third respondent, dated 2.5.2011, terminating the service of the petitioner from the post of Jeep Driver and to consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 to appoint the petitioner in the office of the fourth respondent, in the place of the sixth respondent, with all attendant benefits, in view of the Government order in G.O.Ms.No.98, Personnel and Administrative Reform (s) Department, dated 17.7.2006. 2. The petitioner has stated that he had been working as a Jeep Driver, under the fourth respondent Panchayat Union Council, for over six years. Even though the petitioner is fully qualified to be appointed in the said post, he had continued to be employed as a Jeep Driver, on daily wage basis. While so, he had been terminated from service, on 2.5.2011, by an order passed by the third respondent. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the fifth respondent employment exchange ought to have sponsored the name of the petitioner for being appointed as a Jeep Driver in the fourth respondent Panchayat Union Council, under the general category. However, the fifth respondent employment exchange had not sponsored the name of the petitioner. Instead, the fifth respondent employment exchange had sponsored the name of the sixth respondent, who is not qualified to be selected to the said post. 4. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition it is noted that the writ petition had been dismissed as against the respondents 1, 2 and 4 to 6, for non-compliance of the requirements of the Registry, pursuant to the order passed by this Court, on 11.4.2012. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent had submitted that the vacancy in the post of Jeep Driver, in the fourth respondent Panchayat Union Council, had not been filled up, till date. However, the said post is reserved for a scheduled caste candidate. The petitioner, who belongs to a Most Backward Class community, is not entitled to claim that he should be considered for being appointed in the said post. Further, the claim of the petitioner, for being appointed as a Jeep Driver in the fourth respondent Panchayat Union Council, cannot be sustained, as his name had not been sponsored by the fifth respondent employment exchange. Further, the claim of the petitioner, for being appointed as a Jeep Driver in the fourth respondent Panchayat Union Council, cannot be sustained, as his name had not been sponsored by the fifth respondent employment exchange. Even otherwise, the petitioner would not be entitled to be considered for such selection, as he is nearly 42 years of age. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent had also pointed out that the main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner had already been considered by this Court, by its order, dated 9.3.2011, in W.P.No.10318 of 2010. The findings in the said order had become final, as they had not been challenged by the petitioner. 7. It had also been stated that the appointment of the sixth respondent, in the vacancy that had arisen in the post of Jeep Driver, in the fourth respondent Panchayat Union Council, is not under challenge in the present writ petition, as the writ petition has already been dismissed insofar as the respondents 1, 2 and 4 to 6 concerned. 8. In view of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the third respondent, it is noted that the claim of the petitioner that he should have been considered for being appointed as a Jeep Driver, in the fourth respondent Panchayat Union Council, cannot be sustained. 9. It is noted that the name of the petitioner had not been sponsored by the fifth respondent employment exchange, for being considered for the appointment. From the records available, it is also noted that the writ petition had already been dismissed as against the respondents 1, 2 and 4 to 6. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner that the appointment of the sixth respondent, in the post of Jeep Driver, in the fourth respondent Panchayat Union Council, cannot be questioned, at this stage. 10. Even otherwise, it is noted that the name of the petitioner had not been sponsored by the fifth respondent employment exchange, for being considered for the appointment to the post of Jeep Driver, in the fourth respondent Panchayat Union Council, as he had crossed the age limit for being considered for such post. Further, the order passed by this Court, on 9.3.2011, in W.P.No.10318 of 2010, had not been challenged. As such, the findings rendered by the learned single Judge in the said order had become final. 11. Further, the order passed by this Court, on 9.3.2011, in W.P.No.10318 of 2010, had not been challenged. As such, the findings rendered by the learned single Judge in the said order had become final. 11. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the relief prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted in the present writ petition. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.