Repeated Applications for Compassionate Appointment Following Unchallenged Judicial Findings on Ineligibility Cannot Constitute Fresh Cause of Action

The petitioner’s father died-in-harness while serving Punjab National Bank on July 31, 2018

The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment multiple times starting in 2019

His initial prayer was rejected on April 16, 2022, on the grounds of failing to meet essential educational qualifications for the posts of Sweeper, Peon, or Clerk

He challenged this in a previous writ petition (WPA 13469 of 2022), which was dismissed on November 18, 2024, with the Court confirming that he lacked the requisite educational qualifications

Despite this judicial finality, the petitioner filed a fresh application with the Bank, which was rejected on November 10, 2025

The petitioner then filed the instant writ petition, arguing that his improved educational status (passing Class XII) and financial eligibility constituted a fresh cause of action

1. Whether a subsequent rejection of a representation for compassionate appointment, based on the same grounds previously adjudicated by a Court, constitutes a fresh cause of action

2. Whether the Court can re-evaluate essential eligibility criteria that have already attained judicial finality in an earlier proceeding between the same parties

The Court applied the principle of finality of judgment and the doctrine of res judicata in spirit, noting that once a finding by a Single Judge is not challenged in appeal, it attains finality

The court followed the legal principle that compassionate appointment requires the concurrent satisfaction of both educational criteria and financial thresholds

Furthermore, it applied the rule that repeated representations and subsequent rejections on identical grounds do not create a fresh cause of action for the purpose of invoking writ jurisdiction

The Court reasoned that the petitioner’s eligibility regarding educational qualifications had been definitively settled in the judgment dated November 18, 2024

Since the petitioner chose not to appeal that decision to a Division Bench, the finding that he was ineligible became legally binding

The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that the new rejection notice dated November 10, 2025, provided a fresh cause of action, observing that the underlying grounds for rejection remained unchanged

It held that the petitioner could not re-agitate the same issue by merely making repeated applications to the Bank

Because the petitioner failed to meet the first essential criterion (education), the Court found it unnecessary to delve into the second criterion (financial eligibility), as both must be satisfied simultaneously

The Court held that the judgment in the earlier writ petition (WPA 13469 of 2022) attained finality and the instant petition was an attempt to re-litigate a settled matter

Consequently, the Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction and dismissed the writ petition