IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13575 of 2007 1. Hiramani Jha, son of late Mukti Nath Jha, resident of Village and P.O. Railly, P.S. Pandara, Dist. Patna at present working as Primary School Teacher Alambigha Jhuggi Jhopri Barth 1 Anchal Belchhi, Dist. Patna. 2. Ashok Kumar Sharma, son of Ram Das Singh, Resident of Vill.+P.O. Railly, P.S. Pandarak, Dist. Patna, At present working as Primary School Science Teacher Dhanama Sikandara Anchal 1, Dist. Patna. -------- Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. Director, Primary Education, Patna. 3. District Magistrate cum Chairman, District Establishment Committee, Patna. 4. District Superintendent of Education, Patna Member Secretary District Establishment Committee, Patna. 5. Dy. Development Commissioner, Patna Member. 6. District Education Officer, Patna Member. 7. District Inspectors of Schools, Patna. 8. District Welfare Officer, Patna. 9. The Secretary, Cabinet Vigilance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 10. Sri Radhey Krishna Singh Yadav, the then District Superintendent of Education, Patna. 11. Sri Ram Sagar Prasad Singh, the then District Superintendent of Education, Patna. 12. Sri Mohand Chand Mukim, the then District Superintendent of Education, Patna. 13. Sri Prem Shankar Srivastava, the then District Superintendent of Education, Patna. -------- Respondents ----------- 4 18.11.2011 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the undisputed fact that the petitioners’ writ application for the same relief was earlier dismissed by this Court by an order dated 3.11.1997 in CWJC No. 2289 of 1996 and such order of the learned single Judge was also affirmed by the Division Bench while disposing the appeal filed by the petitioners 2 in its order dated 13.3.2007 in LPA No. 1508 of 1997, this Court would find it difficult to entertain the present application. Counsel for the petitioners, however has submitted that the orders passed by this Court in the two writ applications were obtained by fraud by the respondents and as such, a fresh writ application would lie. In the considered opinion of this Court, such submission is only noted for its being rejected, inasmuch as, even if an order was obtained by a fraud, no fresh writ application would lie for the same relief. This Court, therefore, while dismissing this writ application on the principles of resjudicata and constructive resjudicata would give liberty to the petitioners to file an appropriate application for review/recall of the earlier order passed in his case by the learned single Judge which has merged with the order of the Division Bench as noted above. That being so, this writ application subject to the aforesaid observations, must be and is accordingly dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)