Subsequent petitions on identical issues are barred by *res judicata* and constitute impermissible forum shopping.

The Applicant applied for the post of Chief Law Assistant (and previously Station Master) under Employment Notice No. 1/2005.

Although he qualified and completed medical tests by July 2007, his appointment was delayed until April 20, 2009, due to pending police verification.

Conversely, Respondent No. 6, recruited under a subsequent notice (No. 2/2006), joined in September 2007, resulting in higher seniority.

The Applicant previously challenged this seniority before the CAT Bangalore Bench (OA No. 1375/2019).

That application was dismissed on July 6, 2022, on grounds of concealment of material facts, specifically a prior rejection order dated September 6, 2019.

Following a transfer to the Khurda Road Division, the Applicant filed the present OA in 2024 seeking to quash the 2019 rejection and antedate his appointment to September 9, 2007.

1. Whether the present application is barred by the doctrine of res judicata and the prohibition against "forum shopping" following the dismissal of the Applicant's prior OA by a coordinate Bench

2. Whether the delay of over four years in challenging the rejection order dated September 6, 2019, can be condoned under the "sufficient cause" standard

The Tribunal primarily applied the doctrine of res judicata and the "Henderson Principle" (constructive res judicata), as affirmed in State of U.P. v. Nawab Hussain (1997), to ensure the finality of litigation.

It relied on M/s Chetak Construction Ltd. v. Om Prakash (AIR 1998 SC 1855) to condemn "forum shopping".

Regarding limitation, the court applied the principle Quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum (one cannot do indirectly what is prohibited directly) from Supertech Ltd. v. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association (2024).

It further held that condonation of delay requires "sufficient cause" and diligence, citing State of U.P. v. Ajay Kumar (2025) and Kailash Narayan Joshi v. Arun Kumar Joshi (2025), which establish that a counsel's fault does not automatically excuse an educated litigant's negligence.

The Tribunal reasoned that the subject matter of the present OA was identical to the one dismissed by the CAT Bangalore Bench in 2022.

Since the Applicant failed to challenge the Bangalore Bench's order before the appropriate High Court, that decision attained finality, barring the present Bench—a coordinate forum—from re-examining the merits.

The Tribunal characterized the Applicant's filing as an indirect attempt to overcome a prior judicial dismissal, which is legally impermissible.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found the Applicant’s explanation for the four-and-a-half-year delay (attributing it to the negligence of previous counsel) to be insufficient.

It ruled that an educated litigant has an inherent duty to monitor their case and that condoning such "casual indifference" would destabilize the certainty of limitation laws.

It held that the application was conclusively barred by the principle of res judicata and failed to meet the statutory requirements for condonation of delay.

While a supplementary section of the judgment text discussed Rule 306 of the Railway Rules regarding seniority of earlier selections [p. 17-18], the operative and signed order of the Bench expressly dismissed the claim based on the preliminary legal bars of limitation and prior adjudication.