IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15667 of 2009 1. RAM KRIPAL YADAV S/O LATE DHANPAT DAS, R/V-HARHEHA, P.S- BAHERI, DISTT- DARBHANGA, AT PRESENT POSTED AT THARTHARI POLICE STATION- NALANDA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE-CUM-INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE D.I.G., DARBHANGA, P.S- LAHERIYA SARAI, DISTT- DARBHANGA 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SAMASTIPUR 5. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA ----------- 2. 16.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was subjected to departmental proceedings and despite report of exoneration he was discharged from service which came to be confirmed by the D.I.G., Darbhanga in appeal. The Director General of Police-cum- Inspector General of Police, Bihar on 25.6.1993 modified the punishment to censure and directed reinstatement of the petitioner from the date of the order. The petitioner came to this Court in CWJC No. 11694 of 1997 with his claim for seniority inclusive of the period that he remained out of service. The writ petition was disposed on 4.8.1999 in the following terms : “After some argument learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this application to agitate the matter departmentally. The application is dismissed as withdrawn.” Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to persuade this Court that the petitioner filed a fresh representation thereafter, which has been disposed by the authorities on 2 17.3.2001 and that the reasons assigned therein to deny him continuity in service and consequent seniority are erroneous. This Court in CWJC No. 11694 of 1997 obviously did not find any merit in the claim of the petitioner that it was not a fresh induction in service. Rather than inviting adverse verdict against himself and which is a normal practice, the petitioner opted to withdraw the writ petition. He desired to pursue the matter departmentally. This does not detract from the fact that the Court had found no legal merit in his claim. The petitioner sought to take a chance to represent in the hope that though he may have failed before this Court, he may succeed before the authorities. After he has failed before the authorities, he cannot make a fresh ground of action on such fresh orders on his representation when on the earlier occasion this Court had found no merit in the matter. The petitioner seeks to invite this Court to sit in judgment over the order of this Court in CWJC No.11694 of 1997. This Court does not have the jurisdiction to do so. The present writ application is barred also by the principles of res judicata. The writ application is dismissed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)