MURARI MOHAN RAY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In their relentless efforts to get the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 8 as the Director of Agriculture, Assam, the two petitioners involved in this two writ petitions have again invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing the instant writ petitions. Since, both the writ petitions are on identical facts and the relief prayed for are also the same, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. The writ petitions were admitted for hearing by order dated 29.08.2011 and recording the statements made by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 8 that the writ petitions are not maintainable, irrespective of admission of the same for hearing, the question of maintainability of the writ petitions was kept open.

(2.) During the course of hearing of the writ petitions learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in view of the earlier writ proceedings with the finality to the same even at the level of the Apex Court, the petitioners are precluded from re-agitating their grievance in the form of present two writ petitions. According to them, the writ petitions are misconceived and clearly barred by the principles of resjudicata and/or constructive res-judicata.

(3.) We may note at this stage that the earlier writ proceedings which were initiated by the petitioners were related to the matter of selection and appointment of the respondent No. 8 for the post of Director of Agriculture, Assam. The petitioner involved in W.P.(C) No. 4319/2011 had filed W.P.(C) No. 1587/2011. The said writ petition having been dismissed, he had preferred an appeal before the Apex Court which was numbered as SLP (C) No. 6933/2011. The SLP was also dismissed. Thereafter he filed another writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 3397/2011, but the same was withdrawn. Now he has filed the present writ petition.