Judgment :- The petitioner has come up with this writ petition to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to forbear from appointing any person other than the petitioner in the post of gardener in which the petitioner was working in the third respondent college. 2. The petitioner on an earlier occasion has filed the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.10539 of 2009 for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents 2 and 3 to forbear from interfering in any way with the petitioner's service in the second respondent-college by preventing or stopping him from working in the same or otherwise, except according to procedure established by law, and to continue his said service pursuant to appointment order in Ref.No.SCC/05/2007/AO dated 28.02.2007 issued by the 3rd respondent, paying him his salary for the same. 3. This Court by the order dated 13.10.2011 dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable and held as follows:- "The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to forbear from interfering in any way in the petitioner's service in the second respondent college by preventing him or stopping him for work, otherwise except in the procedure established by law and also for a direction to continue his service pursuant to the appointment order, dated 28.02.2007 issued by the third respondent namely Correspondent-cum-Secretary of the College. A copy of the appointment order, dated 28.02.2007 is found enclosed in page number 10 of the typed set of papers. In that order, it is stated that the petitioner was appointed as management non-teaching staff on daily wage basis with effect from 01.03.2007. He should look after the garden work and other duties assigned by the Correspondent and the Principal of the College. 2. It is stated by the petitioner that pursuant to the said appointment order, he was allowed to work and he has also signed in the attendance register for several months. But, suddenly he was prevented from work in the College. In the letter, dated 28.07.2009 sent to the Bishop, who is the Chairman of the S.C. College, the petitioner has stated that after the change of Correspondent and Secretary of the College, the newly appointed Secretary has not allowed him to work in the College and he has been working more than 500 days in the College. 3. In the letter, dated 28.07.2009 sent to the Bishop, who is the Chairman of the S.C. College, the petitioner has stated that after the change of Correspondent and Secretary of the College, the newly appointed Secretary has not allowed him to work in the College and he has been working more than 500 days in the College. 3. When the matter came up on 20.10.2009, notice of motion was ordered and private notice was also permitted. Pending notice of motion, no interim relief was granted to the petitioner though two applications were filed. 4. On notice from this Court, Mr.K.Sreekumaran Nair, the learned counsel for the second respondent herein has filed the counter affidavit dated 08.07.2011. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner was a staff assistant for Gardon and he was taken only as the management staff and appointment was made by the then correspondent without being reference to the education board and therefore, the appointment itself is invalid and the petitioner is also not attending the college from June 2009 as daily wage worker. He does not have any legal right and no writ will lie against the college or against the General Body of the Diocese. If any necessity arises and if he is not in employment, the present Correspondent may engage him also. At present there is no requirement for the petitioner's service. 5. In the light of the stand taken by the second respondent, the present writ petition is not maintainable. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs." 4. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming for the very same relief in a different form. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.10539 of 2009 in which the petitioner claimed the very same relief, this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.