WP(C) 4582/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard B. Chetri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the avermen t made in the application. The prayers made in the writ petition are as follows: Under the facts and circumstances stated above it is therefore prayed that Your Lordship may be pleased to - a) Issue a Rule calling upon the respondents, to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of the Mandamus should not be issued commanding them- (i) to reinstate the petitioner in his original post of ’Messenger’ at SBI, Guwa hati Branch, Guwahati on regular basis or in any Grade -IV post with all service benefits due to him w.e.f. 05.12.2006 considering his length of 15 years of con tinuous service w.e.f. 1991 to 2006. (ii) to set aside and quash the impugned letters dated 23.02.07 & 30.09.09 (Anne xure- F1 & G1) issued by the respondents authority, whereby the petitioner’s cas e was denied to consider. (iii) on perusal of relevant record and in default of consideration of the petit ioner’s case, the appointment order/ engagement order of the private respondents on finding of illegality malafide and discrimination may be set aside and quash . b) issue a Rule in the nature of certiorari commanding the respondents to transi mt and certify all relevant records of the petitioner’s service to this Hon’ble Court so that conscionable justice may be done by passing appropriate order to r einstate the petitioner in the post of messenger at SBI, Guwahati Branch, Panbaz ar, Guwahati-1 or in any other Grade-IV post along with other similarly situated persons. c) During pendency of the Rule, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the resp ondents Bank to reinstate the petitioner in his service immediately under the re spondent No. 2 (SBI, Guwahati Branch) considering his 15 years length of service in the Bank, the poverty and hardship of the family members in the interest of justice and fair play. And May be pleased to pass such other or further order as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper. This is the third writ petition filed by the petitioner on the same caus e of action. Earlier he had filed W.P.(C) No. 1532/07 claiming the same relief. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 21.04.2009 holding that th ere was no merit in the writ petition. The petitioner once again approached this Court by filing the second wri t petition being W.P.(C) No. 5798/09 which was also dismissed by order dated 22. 01.2010 noticing the order passed in the earlier writ petition. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a writ appeal being WA No. 123/2010 against the said order dated 22.01.2010 and the same was also dismissed. By order dated 07.05.2010 inte r alia held as follows: We do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge. The reli efs sought in the writ petition have already been refused to the writ petition i n the earlier writ proceeding registered and numbered as W.P.(C) No. 1532 of 200 7. In such circumstances, there could be no justification to issue any direction either for the reengagement of the petitioner or for his regularisation. Consequently, this appeal is found to be without any merit. It is, accor dingly, dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. Now the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with the aforesai d prayer. Mr. Chetri, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the impugned notifications dated 23.02.07 and 30.09.09 (Annexure F1 and G1) were not under challenge in the earlier proceedings, the writ petition is maintainable i n law. On perusal of the earlier order dated 21.04.09 by which the first writ pe tition being W.P.(C) No. 1532/07 was disposed of, it is clear that the impugned communication dated 23.02.07 was duly taken note of. In the order dated 22.01.20 10 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5798/09, the impugned communication dated 30.09.09 was also taken note of. It cannot be said that the impugned communicat ions did not form part of the earlier writ proceedings. With the repeated approa ch by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court in the above manner, the peti tioner has abused the process of law. The matter having attained its finality ca nnot be allowed to reagitate again and again. The registry is directed to not to entertain any further writ petition which might be filed by the petitioner on t he same cause of action.