IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2161 of 2009 RAMADHAR SINGH Versus BIHAR SCHOOL EXAM.BOARD & ORS ----------- 2. 12.2.2009 Heard counsel for the parties In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for the following relief: “(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondent authorities to dispose of the representation dated 8.6.2007 filed by the petitioner in the light of direction given by this Hon’ble High Court on 21.5.2007 in C.W.J.C.No. 11785/2006 (Narvdeshwar Kumar Sharma and others vs. Bihar School Examination Board & ors.) regarding publishing the result of certificate in physical education held in the year 1994, contained in Annexure 7 of the writ petition. (ii) For issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to maintain similarity in publishing the result of the candidates. (iii) To grant any other relief/reliefs which the petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2 The aforementioned guarded relief if examined in its true perspective would boil down to one and only one relief that the result of the petitioner in respect of an examination of Certificate of Physical Education (C.P.Ed.) held in the year 1994 should be declared. It is not in doubt that earlier the writ petitioner had moved this Court for the same relief of declaration of his result in C.W.J.C.No. 11975/2006 which was dismissed by this Court by an order dated 20.11.2006. Thereafter the petitioner had filed an appeal against the aforesaid order dated 20.11.2006 L.P.A. No. 980/2006 which was withdrawn on 8.1.2007 for filing a review petition. Subsequently the civil review filed by the petitioner as against the order of the Hon’ble Single Judge dated 20.11.2006 in C.W.J.C.No. 11975/2006 was dismissed on 19.2.2007. Thereafter the petitioner had again filed an appeal, being L.P.A.No. 208/2007, which also was dismissed by this Court on 17.5.2007. In that view of the matter, this writ application seeking substantially the same relief i.e. declaration of result of 1994 examination is 3 clearly barred by the principles of resjudicata and constructive resjudicata. The plea of the petitioner that subsequently this Court in the case of some other candidates by an order dated 21.5.2007 in C.W.J.C.No. 11785/2006 and its analogous cases had made observation for disposal of the representation of those writ petitioners and the aforesaid order of this Court dated 21.5.2007 had given him a fresh cause of action to file this writ application because the petitioner’s representation in the light of the order dated 21.5.2007 in the aforementioned C.W.J.C.No. 11785/2006 and its analogous cases was still pending is neither here nor there. The reliance placed by the petitioner on another judgment of this Court dated 12.11.2008 in C.W.J.C.No. 12408/2008 is also misconceived, inasmuch as that judgment only covers the cases of those writ petitioners. The aforementioned judgment of this Court dated 12.11.2008 did not permit reopening of all such cases of all such examinees whose results were not declared earlier and/or whose writ applications have been also dismissed by this Court. 4 The further reliance placed by the petitioner on a judgment of this Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar & ors., reported in 2006(3) PLJR 573, laying down that if a relief is granted in a writ proceeding to certain persons, then the authority must grant the same benefit to similarly situated persons even if such person had not approached the court and were not party to the writ application is also misconceived. As noticed above, this Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Srivastava (supra) had carved out an exception only for such persons who had not approached the Court and had a similar case. Here the position is converse. The petitioner had moved this Court and his relief for declaration of his result had already been rejected by a reasoned judgment which also stands affirmed by the Division Bench in appeal. That being so, it must be held that the present writ application is a frivolous writ application. Once the main cause of action of the petitioner with regard to declaration of his result had not found favour from this Court in his writ 5 application and the consequential appeal, he cannot be allowed to take advantage of some subsequent judgment of some other candidates which in effect would nullify the inter party judgment involving the petitioner. This Court, sitting singly therefore, cannot take any different view as with regard to the case of the petitioner and issue a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for declaration of result of 1994 examination or dispose of the representation of the petitioner in the light of the subsequent judgment when an inter party judgment, as noticed above, which has also become final, binds the petitioner. That being so, this writ application must be and is hereby dismissed with a cost of Rs. 2500/- to be paid by the petitioner to the Bihar School Examination Board which has been subjected to repeated harassive litigations launched by the petitioner for the same relief. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/