IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8195 of 2009 MISS SHARBANI SHREE AGE ABOUT 28 YEARS D/O DILIP KUMAR, R/O FORBESGANJ, P.S.K HAT, DISTT-PURNEA …………PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THRU THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR HAVING HIS OFFICE AT OLD SECRETARIAT, P.S. SACHIVALAYA, DISTT-PATNA. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR HAVING ITS OFFICE AT OLD SECRETARIAT, P.S. SACHIVALAYA, DISTT-PATNA. 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR HAVING HIS OFFICE AT VIKAS BHAWAN, P.S. SACHIVALAYA, DISTT-PATNA. 4. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR HAVING HIS OFFICE AT VIKAS BHAWAN, P.S. SACHIVALAYA, DISTT-PATNA. 5. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, PURNEA DIVISION, PURNEA. 6. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PURNEA. 7. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, EDUCATION, PURNEA DIVISION, PURNEA. 8. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICE PURNEA. 9. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NAGAR PARISHAD, PURNEA. 10. THE MEMBER APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ZILA SHIKSHAK NIYOJAN, PURNEA………………………………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 06/ 18-Jan-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner has prayed for declaring Rule 4 (ka) (ii) of Bihar Nagar Nikay Madhyamik Evam Uchchattar Madhyamik Shikshak (Niyojan Evam Seva Shartien) Niyamawali, 2006 as ultra vires and also seeking quashing of Annexure-1 whereby the appellate authority dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against 2 cancellation of her appointment on the post of Hindi Teacher in Government Girls’ High School, Purnea. 3. Learned counsel for the State has raised a preliminary objection on the ground of res judicata/constructive res judicata in the light of order dated 17.03.2009 contained in Annexure-15 whereby an earlier writ petition preferred by the petitioner and others bearing CWJC No. 10186/2008 seeking relief against cancellation of appointment was dismissed as withdrawn without seeking any liberty to prefer fresh writ petition. 4. The fact that earlier writ petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn without any liberty is not in dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the ground of invalidity of the relevant Rule was not taken in the earlier writ petition and at that time a review petition was pending before the appellate authority which has been subsequently dismissed on 18.04.2009 vide an order which is a part of Annexure-1 series. 5. An additional ground cannot form the basis for preferring a second writ petition as it would be barred by principles of constructive res judicata. So far as the 3 pendency of a review petition is concerned, since the review has been dismissed and the earlier appellate order stands confirmed, there is no change in factual situation to create a fresh cause of action for preferring a second or subsequent writ petition. The appellate order dated 31.12.2008 was not interfered with by this Court when the earlier writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn and petitioner cannot be granted any relief unless the same appellate order contained in Annexure-1 series is interfered with or set aside. 6. Thus we find ourselves unable to give any relief to the petitioner. The writ petition has to be held as barred by principles of res judicata/constructive res judicata in view of law laid down in paragraph-13 of Supreme Court judgment in the case of Avinash Nagra v. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti & Ors (1997)2 SCC 534. The writ petition is dismissed. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)