JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In the instant writ application, the petitioners have inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondent nos.1 to 3 to appoint them giving age relaxation in pursuance of order dated 11.02.2004 passed in W.P.(S) No.6358 of 2002 filed by the similarly situated persons. 3. The short fact as disclosed in the writ petition is that respondent no.1 on 4.11.1995 wrote to respondent no.4 notifying the vacancies for the post of Junior Overman giving particulars and details of the vacancies. The petitioners after fulfilling required criteria submitted their applications for appointment to the post of Junior Overman to the respondent no.1. Accordingly, they appeared in the written test and after being qualified in the written test they were called for interview in terms of letter dated 25.10.1997 as evident from Annexure-3 series. It has been alleged that after facing interview respondent kept silent over the matter for a petty long period. It has further been averred in the writ application that case of the petitioners is squarely covered by W.P.(S) No.6358 of 2002. Being aggrieved by non selection of the petitioners on the aforesaid post, left with no alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy, the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for redressal of his grievance. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that due to inaction of the respondents, the petitioners crossed the age bar, was not in a position to appear in the subsequent recruitment. Considering the similar nature of grievance, this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 11.02.2004 passed in W.P.(S) No.6358 of 2002 (Annexure-4) has been pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment on the post of Junior Overman. 5. As against the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Rajesh Lala submits that all the points raised by the petitioners have been dealt with in the case of similarly placed petitioners, Pankaj Kumar Sinha & Ors. in W.P.(S) No.800 of 2008 wherein this Hon’ble Court has been pleased to dismiss the said writ petition. 6. Rajesh Lala submits that all the points raised by the petitioners have been dealt with in the case of similarly placed petitioners, Pankaj Kumar Sinha & Ors. in W.P.(S) No.800 of 2008 wherein this Hon’ble Court has been pleased to dismiss the said writ petition. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, I am of the considered view that the case of the petitioners has to meet the same fate as has been ordered in W.P.(S) No.800 of 2008 vide order dated 30.04.2009. Since the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court dated 30.04.2009 in W.P.(S) No.800 of 2008, since no new ground has been taken by the petitioners, this Court is inclined to accede to the view taken in W.P.(S) No.800 of 2008 vide Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition sans merit is dismissed.