JUDGMENT Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. 1. This mandamus appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 3rd October, 2012 passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court in W.P No.5519 (W) of 2008 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/petitioner was dismissed by holding same as thoroughly misconceived. 2. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Learned Single Judge of this Court, the writ petitioner has filed the instant mandamus appeal. 3. Let us now consider the merit of this mandamus appeal in the facts of the instant case which is summarized hereunder as follows:- On 24th July, 2004, the petitioner applied for the post of Samprasarak in the Magurkhali Madhyamik Siksha Kendra situated with the jurisdiction of Berabari Gram Panchayat in the district of North 24 Parganas in pursuance of an advertisement issued on 17th July, 2004 by the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the concerned Siksha Kendra the respondent 8 herein. Admittedly, at the time when he applied for the said post he had requisite educational qualification for the said post but he was under aged. He was below 40 years at the time when he applied for the said post. Since no other suitable candidate could be found for the post of Samprasarak in Bengali, he was selected for such appointment in the said post by giving him relaxation to the age bar as per the guidelines prescribed therefor. Pursuant to the appointment offer given to him he accepted the said offer of appointment and ultimately he joined the said school as Samprasarak in Bengali. An agreement was entered into between the Secretary of the concerned School and the petitioner on 16th August, 2004 relating to the petitioner’s engagement which remained valid for the period between 1st September, 2004 and 13th April, 2005. Subsequently, by another agreement dated 2nd May, 2005 the writ petitioner was re-appointed as Samprasarak in Bengali for the period between May, 2005 and 13th April, 2006. His honorarium was paid to him upto March, 2005. From 1st April, 2005 he was not paid any honorarium though he continued to render his service in the said Madhyamik Siksha Kendra continuously till 25th September, 2006. The concerned authority also utilized his service in the said school as Samprasarak in Bengali upto 25th September, 2006 without even renewing the agreement for re-appointment after 30th April, 2006. From 1st April, 2005 he was not paid any honorarium though he continued to render his service in the said Madhyamik Siksha Kendra continuously till 25th September, 2006. The concerned authority also utilized his service in the said school as Samprasarak in Bengali upto 25th September, 2006 without even renewing the agreement for re-appointment after 30th April, 2006. Ultimately, he was not allowed to render his service in the said Madhyamik Siksha Kendra w.e.f. 26th September, 2006. Since he was prevented from rendering his service in the Madhyamik Siksha Kendra as Samprasarak in Bengali w.e.f. 26th September, 2006, he made a complaint to the Executive Officer and Ex-Officio Block Development Officer Habra which also remained unattended for an unreasonable period. 4. Under such circumstances he filed a writ petition being W.P No.23906 (W) of 2006 complaining inaction of the concerned authority for not considering his representation. He also prayed for some other incidental reliefs in the said representation. While considering the said writ petition, the Learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court was of the view that Smt. Dipa Ghosh who was also an aspirant for the said post was required to be added in the said writ petition and accordingly direction was given for impleading her as added respondent in the said petition. Accordingly, she was added as respondent in the said writ petition. The said writ petition was ultimately disposed of on 11th October, 2007 with a direction upon the respondent No.2 namely the Executive Officer and Ex-Officio Block Development Officer Habra to consider the petitioner’s said representation after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and added respondent Smt. Dipa Ghosh within a period of three weeks from the date of communication of the said order. Direction was also given upon the said respondent to communicate his decision to both the petitioners and Smt. Dipa Ghosh within a period of seven days form the date of passing of the speaking order. Pursuant to such direction passed by Learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court, the petitioner’s said representation was considered by the concerned authority in presence of the petitioner, added respondent and the other Members of the Managing Committee of the said Madhyamik Siksha Kendra. Pursuant to such direction passed by Learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court, the petitioner’s said representation was considered by the concerned authority in presence of the petitioner, added respondent and the other Members of the Managing Committee of the said Madhyamik Siksha Kendra. It was decided by the said respondent that since the agreement for engagement which was entered into between the petitioners and the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the said Madhyamik Siksha Kendra for the second time, expired on 30th April, 2006 and further since the same was not renewed, there was no justifiable reason for allowing the petitioner to continue his service between 1st May, 2006 and 15th October, 2006 in the said Madhyamik Siksha Kendra. However, since the petitioner rendered his service between 1st May, 2006 and 15th October, 2006 without any valid agreement it would be presumed that he did so voluntarily. However, direction was given upon the authority concerned to pay him his unpaid honorarium immediately. 5. Thus, the concerned authority held that the school authority did not commit any illegality by not allowing him to sign in the Attendance Register from 16th October, 2006. While coming to such conclusion the concerned authority, after taking note of the fact that an advertisement has also been published on 2nd April, 2007 inviting applications from the suitable candidates for the post of Samprasarak in Bengali for the said Madhyamik Siksha Kendra, permitted the petitioner to apply for the said post in pursuance of the said advertisement with a rider that in the event he applies for the said post then his candidature will also be considered by the concerned authority along with two other candidates who applied for the said post. This is how the petitioner’s said representation was disposed of by the concerned respondent No.2 therein. 6. The petitioner applied for the said post in terms of the order passed by the concerned Executive Officer as aforesaid and he also participated in the selection process for the said post. Even after appearing in the interview, he questioned the legality of such selection process by submitting a representation before the Mission Director. 6. The petitioner applied for the said post in terms of the order passed by the concerned Executive Officer as aforesaid and he also participated in the selection process for the said post. Even after appearing in the interview, he questioned the legality of such selection process by submitting a representation before the Mission Director. Since the said representation of the petitioner was not considered by the concerned authority immediately after its submission, he moved another writ petition being W.P No. 44 1(W) of 2008 which was disposed of on 23rd January, 2008 by another Learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court on 17th January, 2008 with a direction upon the respondent No.9, namely, Mission Director to consider the petitioner’s said representation within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of the said order by giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and by recording a reasoned order. The authority was directed to communicate the result of its decision to the petitioner immediately after such decision was taken. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction passed by this Hon’ble Court, the petitioner’s grievances as highlighted in the said representation, was considered by the Mission Director who in his order dated 14th March, 2008 held that having regard to the fact that the petitioner applied for the said post and participated in the selection process by appearing before interview board, he cannot be allowed to challenge the legality of such selection process at this stage. The Mission Director thus, held that it would not be appropriate to cancel the interview taken by the Managing Committee at this stage. However, direction was given upon the concerned authority to pay him the unpaid honorarium immediately in terms of the order passed by the Block Development Officer, Habra-2, dated 17th December 2007. The petitioner was not satisfied with the decision taken by the Mission Director in his order dated 4th march, 2008. As such he filed another writ petition being W.P. No.5519(W) of 2008 for challenging the legality and/or propriety of the said order passed by the Mission Director as aforesaid. The petitioner was not satisfied with the decision taken by the Mission Director in his order dated 4th march, 2008. As such he filed another writ petition being W.P. No.5519(W) of 2008 for challenging the legality and/or propriety of the said order passed by the Mission Director as aforesaid. In the said writ petition the petitioner has not only prayed for cancellation and/or modification of the said order of the Mission Director dated 14th March, 2008 but also prayed for quashing the interview held on 31st December, 2007 for the post of Samprasarak in Bengali as well as of the subsequent steps taken in the said selection process leading to preparation of the panel for the said post, if any. He also prayed for his reinstatement in the post of Samprasarak in Bengali in the said Madhyamik Siksha Kendra for the period from 2007 to 2008. The said writ petition was dismissed by the Learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court by the order which is impugned in this appeal by holding, inter alia, that there is no illegality in the reasoned order passed by the Mission Director which was absolutely in conformity with the Court’s order dated 17th January, 2008 passed in W.P No.441(W) 2008. While dismissing the said writ petition, His Lordship however, took exception as the writ petitioner moved successive writ petitions repeatedly on the self-same cause of action for identical reliefs. His Lordship thus, held that the habit of filing the successive applications for the same reliefs and on the same causes of action which has developed in the petitioner cannot be encouraged as his easy access to justice should not be misused as a license for filing misconceived or frivolous petition repeatedly. With these observations the writ petition was dismissed. 7. Let us now consider as to how far the Learned Single Judge was justified in passing the impugned order in the facts of the instant case. 8. Mr. Moitra, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the year 2004, the school authority published an advertisement inviting application from suitable candidates for filling up two vacancies of Samprasaraks in the said Madhyamik Siksha Kendra. One of such posts was for the Samprasarak in Bengali and the other post was for the Samprasarak in history. Pursuant to the said advertisement the petitioner herein applied for the post of Samprasarak in Bengali. One of such posts was for the Samprasarak in Bengali and the other post was for the Samprasarak in history. Pursuant to the said advertisement the petitioner herein applied for the post of Samprasarak in Bengali. The private respondent namely Md. Humayun Kabir, applied for the post of Samprasarak in History. Both of them had requisite educational qualification at the relevant time. However, both of them were under aged as they were below 40 years of age at the relevant time. However, since no other suitable candidate could be found for those two posts, the petitioner and the said Md. Humayun Kabir were selected for the post of Samprasarak in the respective subjects by giving relaxation to their age bar in the tune of the guidelines. Both of them were appointed for one year after entering into agreement between the school authority and these two selected candidates, separately. They successfully completed their services within the contractual period. Thereafter the contract was again renewed and they were again re-engaged in their respective posts for the subsequent year for the period between 2nd May, 2005 and 3rd April, 2006. But for the subsequent period though the private respondent namely, Md. Humayun Kabir was allowed to continue on the basis of an agreement entered into between the school authority and him but the petitioner was not re-engaged by entering into further agreement though he was allowed to continue his service till 26th September, 2006 without paying any remuneration to him. 9. Mr. Moitra, Learned Senior Counsel tried to impress upon us that his client was discriminated upon by the school authority by not allowing him to continue his service in the said post by way of reengagement though other similarly situated Samprasarak namely Md. Humayun Kabir was allowed to continue his service as Samprasarak in History for the subsequent period by the school authority. 10. He further contended that termination of the service of the petitioner without giving any opportunity of hearing cannot be justified in view of the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court:- 1. In the case of Manohar –Vs- State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in (2012) 13 Supreme Court Cases 14. 2. In the case of Shekhar Ghosh –Vs- Union of India & Anr. reported in (2007) 1 Supreme Court cases (L &S) 247. 11. In the case of Manohar –Vs- State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in (2012) 13 Supreme Court Cases 14. 2. In the case of Shekhar Ghosh –Vs- Union of India & Anr. reported in (2007) 1 Supreme Court cases (L &S) 247. 11. In both the aforesaid decisions it was held that service of employee cannot be affected without following the principles of natural justice. It was also held therein that even the post decisional hearing is not sufficient to render justice to the affected employee who had to suffer civil consequence because of the wrongful decision taken by the employer. 12. Relying upon the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Mr. Moitra, Learned Senior Counsel, invited us to interfere with the impugned order and to set aside the selection process undertaken by school authority for filling up the post of Samprasarak in Bengali in the said Madhyamik Siksha Kendra and also to reinstate him in the post of Samprasarak in Bengali by respecting the principles of equal treatment amongst the equals. 13. Mr. Bhattacharjee, Learned advocate appearing for the State refuted such submission of Mr. Moitra by drawing our attention to the affidavit filed by the President of the Managing Committee of the said school wherein it was disclosed that at the time when the selection process was initiated in 2004 no other suitable candidate having requisite qualification within the prescribed age group i.e., 40 years and above was available either for the post of Samprasarak in Bengali or for the post of Samprasarak in history. As such the petitioner who had requisite educational qualification was selected for the said post of Samprasarak in Bengali by giving the age relaxation to him. At the time of his engagement in the year 2004, he was aged about 35 years plus and Md. Humayun Kabir who was appointed as Samprasarak in History was aged about 39 years at the time of his appointment in 2004. He was not paid remuneration till he attained the age of 40 years. During the continuance of first contract, he attained the age of 40 years and as such he was re-engaged for the subsequent period. Humayun Kabir who was appointed as Samprasarak in History was aged about 39 years at the time of his appointment in 2004. He was not paid remuneration till he attained the age of 40 years. During the continuance of first contract, he attained the age of 40 years and as such he was re-engaged for the subsequent period. Similarly, the agreement of engagement of the petitioner was renewed for the second time in May, 2005 again by giving age relaxation to him as even at that point of time no other suitable candidate for the said post was available. However, in 2006 another suitable candidate namely Dipa Ghosh aged about 41 years having requisite qualification with Honours degree in Bengali and B.Ed. applied for the said post. As such the school authority became helpless to renew the engagement of the petitioner for the subsequent period by giving age relaxation to him as he did not attain the age of 40 years even by that time and a suitable candidate aged about 41 years having requisite qualification and even more qualified than the petitioner was available to this Madhyamik Siksha Kendra. Both the petitioners and Dipa Ghosh participated in the selection process. Both of them took part in the interview. Dipa Ghosh scored 30.7% Marks where as the petitioner scored 17.66% marks in the selection test. As such the selection authority ultimately selected Dipa Ghosh for giving her appointment to the post of Samprasarak in Bengali. 14. Considering the facts of the instant case as stated above we feel that school authority did not commit any illegality in selecting Dipa Ghosh for the said post as she satisfied both the requisite criteria prescribed for appointment in the said post as per the recruitment guidelines. From the affidavit of the President of the Managing Committee we find that the selected candidate is much more qualified than the petitioner. She was having Honours degree in Bengali. She had also acquired B.Ed. degree. She was aged about 41 years. As such we find that she fulfilled all the requisite criteria for being appointed in the post of Samprasarak in Bengali in the said Madhyamik Siksha Kendra. She was having Honours degree in Bengali. She had also acquired B.Ed. degree. She was aged about 41 years. As such we find that she fulfilled all the requisite criteria for being appointed in the post of Samprasarak in Bengali in the said Madhyamik Siksha Kendra. On the contrary we find that the petitioner was less qualified than the selected candidate and he was below 40 years on the date of interview and he scored less marks than the selected candidate in the selection test. 15. The guidelines issued for engagement of Samprasarak provides that in case candidate aged about 40 years or more, having requisite qualification is not available in the Gram Panchayat within which the Madhyamik Siksha Kendra is situated or is also not available within the neighboring villages, age relaxation can be given to other candidate having requisite qualification by reducing the requisite age limit of the candidates by five years i.e., upto 35 years provided the State Authority approves such proposal of the selection authority. There is nothing on record to show that such relaxation was ever proposed by the selection authority or the Government was ever approached for grant of such relaxation or the Government ever approved such proposal of the selection authority. 16. However, we find that such relaxation was given in several cases by the State authority under such circumstances. When the petitioner was appointed in the said post he was under aged at the relevant time but still then he was allowed to join the said post and honorarium was also paid to him regularly till May, 2005. Thus, we can safely presume that State Authority granted age relaxation to the petitioner at the time of his initial appointment and also at the time of his re-engagement for the second time. However, when a suitable candidate having requisite qualification and even a more qualified candidate than the petitioner was available within the prescribed age group, we do not find any justifiable reason to exclude her from the selection process. We do not find any unreasonableness on the part of the authority concerned for not re-engaging the petitioner in the said post as he could not otherwise fulfil the requisite criteria so far as the age restriction is concerned for the said post. 17. We do not find any unreasonableness on the part of the authority concerned for not re-engaging the petitioner in the said post as he could not otherwise fulfil the requisite criteria so far as the age restriction is concerned for the said post. 17. In the above set of facts we have no hesitation to hold that this is not a case where the service of the petitioner was terminated within the contractual period. The petitioner was not disturbed during the contractual period. Admittedly he accepted a contractual job and he was allowed to complete his service during the contractual period. When such an employee consciously accepted his contractual service for a specified period under a contract, such contractual employee cannot claim re-engagement after the expiration of the contract as of right. In our view it was absolutely within the domain of the authority concern to decide whether such contractual service of the employee will be renewed or not and the employee has nothing to say in the decisional process of the employer in this regard. Since this is not a case of termination of service within the contractual period we are of the view, that the petitioner cannot complain about the illegality in the decision of the Managing Committee of the said school for not allowing him to continue his service even after the expiry of the contractual period, on the ground of not affording him an opportunity of being heard before taking such decision by the school authority. Had it been a case of wrongful termination of his service within the contractual period and thereby the employee was made to suffer any civil consequence, then certainly the legality of the said decision of the Managing Committee for discontinuation of the petitioner’s service within the contractual period could have been challenged on the ground of violation of the principle of natural justice by relying upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as cited by Mr. Moitra, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 18. Thus we conclude by recording that the principles as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in those two decisions as cited above by Mr. Moitra Learned Senior Counsel have no application in the instant case. We thus, find no reason to interfere with the impugned order in the facts of the instant case. 19. 18. Thus we conclude by recording that the principles as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in those two decisions as cited above by Mr. Moitra Learned Senior Counsel have no application in the instant case. We thus, find no reason to interfere with the impugned order in the facts of the instant case. 19. The concerned authority is directed to pay his arrear dues within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. 20. The appeal is thus, disposed of without interfering with the impugned order, however, with this observation that we cannot agree with the findings of the Learned Single Judge that the earlier two writ petitions were moved by the petitioner for identical reliefs and on identical set of facts. We find that the cause of action for filing these three writ petitions were different from each other though the relief for reinstatement was common in all these writ petition and as such we cannot approve that part of the findings of the Learned Single Judge wherein filling of successive writ petitions by the petitioner was criticized by the Learned Single Judge. I agree. Appeal dismissed.