Successive writ petition seeking identical relief previously adjudicated and final is barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for appointment to the post of Constable in the Bihar Police based on Advertisement Nos. 01/2004, 02/2004, and 03/2004.

He claimed entitlement based on the Supreme Court's observations in Manjesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar regarding transparency and disclosure of marks in recruitment.

Procedurally, the petitioner had previously approached the High Court in 2013 (CWJC No. 15080/2013), which was disposed of on 12.08.2013 in light of the Ajay Kumar case, setting specific conditions and timelines for filling a limited pool of 507 remaining vacancies.

1. Whether the petitioner can seek fresh directions for appointment under the same recruitment advertisements after a previous writ petition on the same matter attained finality.

2. Whether the current writ petition is barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

The court applied the doctrine of res judicata, which precludes a party from relitigating a claim or issue that has already been decided by a competent court between the same parties.

Recruitment processes related to Advertisement Nos. 1/2004, 2/2004, and 3/2004 "shall not be re-opened" beyond the scope of the 507 identified vacancies and the timelines specified therein.

The Court observed that the petitioner’s grievances regarding the 2004 recruitment cycle had already been adjudicated in his earlier writ petition (CWJC No. 15080/2013).

The order passed in that case was never challenged and thus attained finality.

In that prior proceeding, the court had explicitly held that the recruitment process for the concerned advertisements was not to be reopened.

Consequently, the Court found that the petitioner was attempting to revive the same prayer that had already been tested and limited by the previous judgment. Due to the identity of the parties and the underlying cause of action, the Court determined that the current petition was legally untenable under the principle of res judicata.

The Court ruled that the previous order in CWJC No. 15080/2013 is binding on the petitioner and the current petition is barred by res judicata. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.