Finality of judgment precludes re-litigation of disqualification despite contrary subsequent rulings in similar cases.

The appellant was appointed as a Lok Rakshak in 2011 but was subsequently disqualified due to colour blindness

He did not challenge this order until 2019, after noting that other candidates had successfully litigated against similar disqualifications

His 2019 challenge was dismissed by a Single Judge on the grounds of delay and being a "fence-sitter"

This dismissal was confirmed by the Division Bench and subsequently by the Supreme Court via a Special Leave Petition

In 2025, the appellant filed a fresh Writ Petition seeking to set aside the disqualification, arguing that other similar cases had since seen delays condoned

The Single Judge dismissed this new petition, leading to the current Letters Patent Appeal

Whether a petitioner can maintain a second Writ Petition to challenge a disqualification that has already been upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court in previous proceedings

Whether subsequent favorable judgments in similar cases provide a valid ground to reopen a final adjudication involving the same petitioner

The court applied the principle of finality of litigation and the doctrine of *res judicata* (implied).

It relied on the legal principle that once an administrative action (disqualification) is challenged and that challenge is judicialy exhausted and upheld by the highest court, the matter becomes final between the parties

Furthermore, the court applied the principle that a litigant who is a "fence-sitter" and fails to exercise rights in a timely manner cannot revive a finalized grievance based on subsequent developments in third-party litigations

The court reasoned that the appellant’s previous attempt to challenge his disqualification in 2019 had reached a definitive conclusion after being dismissed by the Single Judge, the Division Bench, and the Supreme Court

The bench emphasized that the appellant cannot circumvent these final orders by filing a fresh petition in 2025 simply by citing different outcomes in other cases

The court observed that once a disqualification is upheld through the entire appellate hierarchy, the petitioner’s legal right to contest that specific grievance is extinguished

The court rejected the notion that orders passed in other writ petitions could serve as a basis to revive a case that has already achieved finality between the present appellant and the State

It held that the Learned Single Judge was correct in dismissing the petition as the earlier disqualification had become final and could not be set aside

The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed, confirming that a petitioner cannot make successive attempts to revive a finalized grievance regardless of subsequent favorable rulings in similar third-party matters