IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12761 of 2003 SRI BISHWANATH SINGH, son of late Sri Raj Balabh Singh, resident of village Bilsar, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District Siwan … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Siwan 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Saran at Chapra … Respondents ----------- 5. 21.9.2010 Having heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State as with regard to the following relief: “(I) For issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus to command the respondents to approve the service of the petitioner on the post of peon and further command the respondents to grant all consequential benefits since the date from which the petitioner is entitled for approval the post of peon.” this Court is of the considered opinion that this writ application is not maintainable only on the ground of resjudicata/ constructive resjudicata. In this regard it has to be noted that for the same relief the petitioner had moved this Court in C.W.J.C.No. 7975/1992, 2 wherein the following order was passed: “ Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned S.C.2 for the respondents. After some argument, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this application in order to move departmental authority for redressal of his grievance. This application is permitted to be withdrawn.” As is noted above, when this Court was not inclined to grant the relief to the petitioner he had sought leave to withdraw his writ application and the same was permitted to be withdrawn without giving any liberty to move this Court for the same cause of action. Thereafter the petitioner appears to have moved the authority and his claim was rejected and as such, the order of rejection was made subject matter of another writ petition, C.W.J.C.No. 10651/1993 and this time this Court having gone into the merits of the case had dismissed the writ application by an order dated 16.1.1995 which reads as follows: “ The claim of the petitioner has 3 been rejected, while considering his case in the light of the observations in C.W.J.C.No. 7975/1992, on the ground that his services were never approved by the Department. Counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to refer to any document showing such approval. In fact, it is the case of the petitioner that his services had been approved by the Managing Committee. Since the petitioner has failed to demolish the ground assigned for rejecting his claim, I do not find any merit in the writ application. The application is, accordingly, dismissed.” Once the writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed on merits there could be no question of filing the third writ petition for the same cause of action even on the ground of discovery of a new material. That being so, this application is dismissed as not maintainable. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/