IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5090 of 2010 1. UMESH KUMAR SINGH S/O RAM PUJAN SINGH R/O VILL.- UNWANS, P.S.- ITARHI, DISTT.- BUXAR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE HEAD QUARTER, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE CHAIRMAN, POLICE SELECTION BOARD MUNGER, REASON BOARD NO.1 CUM COMMANDANT, BIHAR MILITARY POLICE-14, PATNA 4. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL MUNGER COMMISSION, MUNGER 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE MUNGER 6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SHEKHPURA 7. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, JAMUI ----------- 2/ 16/11/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. A prayer has been made for adjournment on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner on the ground that he is unwell. In normal circumstances, the Court should have adjourned the matter simpliciter at the outset. However, on going through the pleadings in the writ application this Court is satisfied that it is wholly frivolous and is not raising any questions for consideration and is, in fact, barred by res judicata in view of the earlier order in C.W.J.C. No.18619/08 preferred by the petitioner and another. The controversy relates to appointment on the post of Constable under advertisement No.1/04. The petitioner in paragraph-16 states that he was petitioner No.2 in C.W.J.C. No.18619/08. Paragraph- 2 of the order dated 10.11.2009 reads as follows:- - 2 - “In view of the counter affidavit learned counsel for the petitioner found it difficult to press the writ application on merits with regard to petitioner No.2 to 5.” The Court then gave a direction to examine the claims of petitioner No.1 alone on a representation by him and disposed it by a reasoned and speaking order. The respondents have passed a fresh order on 5.12.2009 rejecting the representation. The writ petition assails that order at the behest of the petitioner alone. The order dated 5.12.2009 deals with all five writ petitioners. If the respondents have considered the claim of the petitioner contrary to the order of the Court, this Court finds it difficult to entertain a fresh cause of action on his behalf in light of the earlier order dismissing the writ petition. There is no explanation in the writ petition under what circumstances the petitioner raises a claim in pursuance of the fresh order dated 5.12.2009 in view of the recitals contained in C.W.J.C. No.18619/08 declining to grant him any relief. This Court was inclined to dismiss the writ application with costs, but refrains from doing so. The writ application stands dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)