Successive litigation on issues already decided by a Division Bench constitutes vexatious litigation and is legally impermissible.

The appellant, S. Bhuvaneshwari, sought appointment as a Sub-Inspector of Police under the 10% "wards and dependents" quota for existing police personnel.

She participated in the recruitment processes for the years 2001-2002 and 2006 but was not selected.

She previously challenged her non-selection in W.P. No. 17472 of 2023, which was dismissed by a Single Judge on March 4, 2025.

Historically, she had also filed W.A. No. 1551 of 2015, which a Division Bench dismissed on July 27, 2017, observing that she failed to secure the BC category cut-off and that the wards quota was not implemented at that specific time.

Despite these prior adjudications, the appellant submitted a fresh representation on March 1, 2023, which was rejected by the Director General of Police on March 29, 2023.

She then filed a new writ petition (W.P. No. 17472 of 2023), the dismissal of which led to the present intra-court appeal.

1. Whether the appellant is entitled to re-litigate the claim for appointment under the 10% wards quota after the issue was previously adjudicated and dismissed by a Division Bench in 2017.

2. Whether the Writ Court was correct in rejecting the appellant's petition as a vexatious attempt to re-adjudicate settled matters.

The Court applied the principle of finality of judgment and the doctrine against the re-adjudication of settled issues.

Once a Division Bench has decided a matter, a party cannot revive the same cause of action through fresh representations.

The Government policy providing a 10% quota to wards of police personnel is subject to eligibility and the specific timeline of recruitment.

The principles of res judicata and the prohibition of vexatious litigation apply to maintain judicial discipline.

The Court observed that the appellant was attempting to circumvent a final judgment delivered by a Division Bench in 2017.

The 2017 judgment had already established that the appellant was ineligible because she did not meet the cut-off marks for her category and the 10% reservation was not implemented during the relevant recruitment period.

The Court noted that the appellant waited five years after the 2017 dismissal before submitting a new representation in 2023.

The Court reasoned that a simple rejection of a fresh representation by the Director General of Police does not create a new cause of action when the underlying legal issue has already been conclusively decided by a higher bench.

The Court characterized the current litigation as "vexatious" due to the attempt to re-open a settled matter.

The Court held that the issue was already adjudicated by the Division Bench in 2017 and the current petition was a vexatious attempt to re-adjudicate the same matter.

The Writ Appeal is dismissed; no costs were awarded.