WP(C) 1564/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. K. SHARMA By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the select ion of the respondent No.7 for the post of Director of Agriculture. I have heard Mr. B. Chetri, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. U.K. Nair, lea rned counsel appearing for the respondent No.7. I have also heard Mr. S. Sumori a, learned Standing Counsel, Agriculture Department. It appears that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court agitati ng the same grievance by filling the writ petition being WP(C) 6452/2010. The or der dated 12.1.2011 passed in the said writ petition, by which the writ petition was dismissed, is reproduced below :- Heard Mr. HK Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S, Sumo ria, learned Standing Counsel, Agriculture Department, Mr.U.K. Nair, learned cou nsel appearing for respondent No.7. The challenge made in this writ petition is the recommendation made by the APSC in favour of Respondent No.7 for the post of Director of Agriculture. The partic ular challenge was also made by one Timothy Hanse (Das) by filling WP(C) 6115 of 2010. The writ petition has been dismissed by order dated 29.11.2010 against wh ich the said petitioner has approached the Division Bench by filling writ appeal being WA No. 417/2010. The writ appeal has also been dismissed by order dated 2 3.12.2010. Mr. HK Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the w rit petition. Prayer is allowed. Writ petition is dismissed. In paragraph 32 of the writ petition, the petitioner has justified filli ng of the second writ petition on the same cause of action. That the petitioner respectfully state that he approached the Hon’ble Court by way of filing WP(C) No. 6452/2010 challenging the recommendation vide letter No. 24PSC/DR-11/2/2009/2010 dated 29.10.2010 (vide Annexure-27) issued by the respo ndent No.5 whereby the respondent No.7 has been recommended for the post of Dire ctor of Agriculture giving complete go by to the mandatory provisions of the Rul es, 1980. However, the petitioner prayed for withdrawal of the said writ petitio n ; and accordingly the prayer was allowed by the Hon’ble Court and the petition was dismissed on being withdrawn (vide Order dated 12.1.2011). The petitioner r espectfully states that the decision of withdrawing WP(C) No. 6452/2010 was take n on the verbal assurance of the respondent authority. The petitioner having already agitated his grievance by the aforesaid wr it petition, which was dismissed by this Court, could not have filed the second writ petition on the same cause of action. Mr. U.K. Nair, learned counsel appear ing for the respondent No.7 submits that against the Division Bench Order dated 23.12.2010 passed in WA 417/2010, mentioned in the order dated 11.02.2011 passed in WP(C) 6452/2010 was put to challenge by filling an appeal before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court by this order, has dismissed the SLP. He has produc ed the copy of the said order passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 2280 /2011. In view of the above, the petitioner could not have filed the instant wr it petition and the filing of the writ petition, in my considered view, is an ab use of the process of law. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed awarding a cost of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only which the High Court Registry s hall realise from the petitioner in accordance with the High Court Rules and dep osited the same with the High Court Mediation Centre. The writ petition stands dismissed.