IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2006 of 2010 RAVI SHANKAR PRASAD SINGH S/O LATE KUSHESHWAR SIGNH R/O VILLAGE & PO- DARIYAPUR, PS- MUFFASSIL DISTT- MUNGER (AT PRESENT ASSISTANT TEACHER, HIGH SCHOOL, HANSPURI HASANGANJ, DISTT- MUNGER-PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECY. HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPTT. GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECY. SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPTT. GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECY. FINANCE DEPTT, GOVT. OF BIHAR,PATNA 4. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR,PATNA 5. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR EDUCATION, MUNGER DIVISION, DISTT- MUNGER 6. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, MUNGER----RESPONDENTS ----------- 2 2.12.2010 Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State the Court is prima facie not convinced that the petitioner has right to seek seniority and his appointment from the date of initial recruitment process which was initiated by the respondent in the year 1997. Admitted position is that the petitioner was not appointed as part of that transaction which led to many rounds of litigation which travelled right upto Hon’ble Supreme Court and only when the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP affirming the decision of learned Single Judge and the Division Bench the petitioner came to be appointed in the year 2006. The appointment letter contained in annexure-7 categorically talks in terms of the conditions of such employment relatable to the date of appointment. Learned counsel thereafter brings to my notice a decision of the Division Bench which according to the petitioner has applicability to the present case and the said decision is annexure-10 to the writ application. - 2 - This Court has certain reservation in application of the said decision in the present case in the background that the petitioner is the beneficiary of a judicial order. In the judicial orders at no point of time it is stated that the appointment so made will be relatable to the date when others were appointed. Even after the issuance of the letter of appointment by the State no objection was taken by the petitioner as to the date when such appointment will take effect. The writ therefore is an after thought. In addition to that since there is no judicial order which shows that such a benefit could be claimed by the petitioner in either of the two decisions that is of the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench, in the opinion of the Court the prayer made by the petitioner is also barred by the principle of res judicata. No direction is required to be issued in the above circumstances. This writ application is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)