WP(C) 2288/2011 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the same relief that he earl ier sought by filing WP(C) No.433/2000. 2. In the first case the petitioners prayed for their appointment as Assist ant Teachers in LP/ME Schools in Barpeta District, in pursuant to the selection held in the year 1997 on the basis of the advertisement issued on 26th December, 1996. They had contended that because of better performance in the selection, t he petitioners have a better claim to appointment compared to the private respon dents, in the said WP(C) No.433/2000. On comparison of marks secured by the peti tioners and the private respondents, the learned Single Judge disposed of the fi rst writ petition on 22nd June, 2006 by directing that only two of the petitione rs, whose performance was better, should be considered for appointment against t he post held by the respondent Nos.6 and 7. 3. Thereafter the aggrieved respondents and the writ petitioner herein took the matter in appeal and the learned Division Bench by its judgment and order d ated 10th December, 2008 dismissed both the writ appeals and upheld the order pa ssed in the writ petition. It was held by the Division Bench that no fault can b e found with the impugned order for not setting aside the entire select list, as the writ petitioners could not demonstrate any illegality in preparing the sele ct list barring appointment of the two appellants, whose appointment was interfe red with by the learned Single Judge. 4. The two aggrieved appointees thereafter took the matter to the Apex Cour t and by order dated 23rd January, 2009, the SLP was disposed of by permitting t he petitioners to withdraw the SLP with opportunity to make comprehensive repres entation to the authorities against appointment of some of the persons, who acco rding to the petitioners, had secured lesser marks than the petitioners. 5. After the Supreme Court disposed of the SLP on 23rd January, 2009, an or der was passed on 14th December, 2010 by the Commissioner and Secretary to the G ovt. of Assam, Education (Elementary) Department, whereby directions were issued for terminating the appointments of undeserved appointees, whose names had not figured in the select list. 6. Because of the aforesaid development in pursuant to the Supreme Court or der, this fresh writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking direction for h is appointment after quashing the appointment of respondent Nos.6 to 17 on the g round that the petitioner secured higher marks than these respondents. 7. What is noteworthy here is that this Court in the earlier round never gr anted the relief that the petitioner is seeking now through this writ petition. Yet the petitioners did not pursue the matter before the Supreme Court and allow ed the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 22nd June, 2006, which was su stained by the Division Bench on 10th December, 2008 to attain finality. 8. Furthermore the petitioner is claiming appointment on the basis of his p erformance in the selection held in the year 1999. Consideration of such claim i s bound to cause disturbance to the already appointed persons and in my consider ed opinion such claim at this point of time should not be entertained. 9. Accordingly, seeking that the petitioner is claiming the same relief tha t he sought in the earlier round and that he failed to challenge before the Supr eme Court the finality of the earlier proceeding, I do not see that an enforceab le fresh cause of action has occurred in his favour, in pursuant to the order pa ssed on 14th December, 2010 (Annexure-A) by the Commissioner and Secretary to th e Govt. of Assam, Education (Elementary) Department. 10. In view of above, this writ petition is not accepted and the same is dis missed.