Successive applications seeking previously adjudicated reliefs are barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

The Applicant was selected as a Store Keeper in November 1992, but the offer was withdrawn on 01.02.1993 as the Regional Office of the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (NVS) had not approved the appointment

Notably, the Orissa High Court in W.P. (C) No. 24649 of 2013 ruled that no direction for reinstatement could be issued, though the Applicant could apply for future advertisements with age relaxation

The Applicant’s subsequent challenges were dismissed by the CAT, the High Court, and finally by the Supreme Court via SLP in 2019 and a Curative Petition in 2023

After his representation was rejected on 12.11.2025, the Applicant filed the present O.A. seeking quashing of the rejection and a direction to be allowed to join his former post with continuity of service

1. Whether the present Original Application is maintainable or hit by the doctrine of res judicata given the extensive prior adjudication of the same dispute

2. Whether the Applicant is entitled to reinstatement or a "deemed approval" of an appointment offer withdrawn in 1993

The Tribunal primarily applied the doctrine of res judicata and the common law maxim "nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa" (no man shall be vexed twice for the same cause), which ensures finality to a lis.

It relied on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Amruddin Ansari v. Afajal Ali (2025) regarding the bar on re-agitating settled issues.

Additionally, it applied the principle that a court cannot grant relief not specifically pleaded or that which overrides the orders of a superior court, citing Om Prakash v. Ram Kumar and Bharat Amratlal Kothari v. Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant was seeking the exact relief (reinstatement/joining) that had been explicitly denied by the Orissa High Court in 2016 and subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court.

The Bench noted that in the Applicant's previous litigation (O.A. No. 569/2017), it had already ruled that allowing such prayers would "tantamount to sitting over the order of the Hon’ble High Court," which is impermissible.

The Tribunal reasoned that since the same parties, facts, and legal claims regarding the 1993 withdrawal had been adjudicated through multiple rounds of litigation ending in a dismissed Curative Petition, the current application was a clear attempt at re-litigation.

The principle of res judicata was thus triggered to prevent the abuse of the legal process.

The court concluded that once a competent jurisdiction (the High Court and Supreme Court) has finally decided an issue, it cannot be reopened in a subsequent suit.

No order was made as to costs.