S. P. SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel representing the respondents No. 1 to 4. 2. Perused the record. 3. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the selection made by the respondent No. 1 for appointment on the posts of Electronic Ac counting Machine Operators and have sought for the quashing of the select list published by the respondent No. 1 prepared on the basis of the written test held on 11-2-96. They have also prayed for a direction requiring the respondent No. 1 to make a fresh selection on a criteria different to the one adopted for holding the selection which according to them was the only criteria which could be adopted for the purpose as provided for under the rules. 4. Prior to the filing of the present writ petition, the petitioner No. 1 which is the registered Union of which the petitioner No. 2 is the Secretary and the other petitioners are the members had filed Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 5203 of 1996 in this Court wherein the registered Union was arrayed as petitioner No. 1 and its Secretary Sri A. N. Panday was arrayed as petitioner No. 2, impleading the present respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 as respondents No. 1, 2 3. Pleadings of the petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5203 of 1996 indicate that the petitioners felt aggrieved by the selec tion process which has now culminated in the select list referred to herein above and had sought for the intervention of this Court seeking to restrain the respondents from holding the selection test for filling up the vacancies in the posts of Electronic Ac counting Machine Operators requiring them to fill up the posts in accordance with law on a criteria other than one which was being adopted for the purpose, as claimed in the present writ petition. The claim of the petitioners in the earlier writ petition was also to the effect that the seniority alone was the criteria which had to be taken into ac count and not the selection test as adopted by the respondents. 5. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5203 of 1996 the petitioners had prayed for a direction requiring the respondents not to hold the selection taking recourse to the written test. 5. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5203 of 1996 the petitioners had prayed for a direction requiring the respondents not to hold the selection taking recourse to the written test. They had also prayed for a direction requiring the respondents to hold the selection for filling up the vacancies in the posts of Electronic Accounting Machine Operators strictly in accordance with the seniority. 6. The earlier writ petition filed by the petitioners Union was heard and finally disposed of by this Court vide its judgment and order dated 9-2-96. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents in that case this Court was not inclined to grant any relief as prayed for in the writ petition but instead directed the respondent No. 1 in that writ petition i. e. Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Varanasi who has been arrayed in the present writ petition as respondent No. 2, to consider and decide the representation dated 22-1-96 which had been submitted by the petitioner in that case and a copy of which had been filed as Annexure 3 to the said writ petition. The aforesaid respondent was required to decide the said repre sentation by a reasoned order in accordance with law. A perusal of the representation dated 23-10-96, a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition No. 5203 of 1996 indicates that the only grievance raised in that representation was that the majority of the members of the Union had not been adequately informed about the date fixed for the written examina tion which could result in depriving them of the opportunity to appear in the said examination. Another grievance set for th in the aforesaid representation was in regard to the transfer policy. The prayer made in the aforesaid representation was that both the matters be considered and suitable direction be issued so that all the eligible candidates may appear in the examination and no employee could be harassed or ex ploited taking shelter behind the implemen tation of the transfer policy. 7. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court referred to herein above the Deputy General Manager disposed of the representation indicated above vide the order dated 16-2-96. 7. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court referred to herein above the Deputy General Manager disposed of the representation indicated above vide the order dated 16-2-96. A perusal of the order dated 16-2-96, a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure-9 to the writ petition indi cates that the grievances of the petitioners were found to be baseless. A perusal of the said order further indicates that all the eligible employees had been properly in formed and no complaint from any of the employees had been received that he had not been informed. The grievance in regard to the implementation of the transfer policy was also found to be misconceived. Accord ingly, the representation was rejected. 8. In the circumstances indicated herein above it k apparent that the petitioners had approached this Court set ting for th a grievance in regard to the selec tion process adopted by the respondents for filling up the vacancies in the posts of Electronic Accounting Machine Operators and had specifically prayed for a direction preventing the holding of the selection test as proposed and requiring the respondents to hold the selection on a criteria different from the one-being adopted by them. 9. It has been urged by the contesting respondents that the relief as claimed by the petitioners in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5203 of 1996 has to be taken as refused by this Court as inspite of hearing the counsel for the parties this Court was not inclined to grant any such relief as is apparent from the perusal of the order dated 9-2-96. It has further been pointed out that in fact in their representation dated 23-1-96 no grievance had been raised challenging the validity of the selection process on the ground as sought to be raised in the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5203 of 1996 or as raised in the present writ petition. It has been urged that in fact, it is apparent from the aforesaid representation that the eligible members of the petitioners Union wanted to appear at the selection test and had complained that they had not been given proper information so as to enable them to appear there inn. This grievance was, however, found to be totally misconceived and baseless. It is true that by the dated of disposal of the Civil Misc. This grievance was, however, found to be totally misconceived and baseless. It is true that by the dated of disposal of the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5203 of 1996 the written test had not been held and the said test on ac count of the dates fixed earlier having been postponed was held on 11-2-96 still the ground of challenge for the said test remains the same as agitated by the petitioners in the previous writ petition No. 5203 of 1996. The petitioners in the present writ petition seek to raise the same controversy as was sought to be and in fact raised in the earlier writ petition in regard to the invalidity of the selection process. 10. The question, therefore, which arises for consideration is as to whether in the presence of the order dated 9-2-96 referred to herein above can it be held to be appropriate to permit the petitioners to take up and agitate the same controversy which was raised by them in the earlier writ petition all over again by means of the present writ petition so far as the impugned selection process is concerned. 11. I am clearly of the opinion that a final order disposing of a writ petition after hearing both the parties has to be taken as a final adjudication of the claim which is the subject-matter of the writ petition. The well established and salutory principle that a relief which is not granted by the court has to be treated to have been refused can safely be extended to a final order disposing of a writ petition unless such an order expressly indicates that the Court was not going into the merits of the claim or is leaving the claim to be decided in another proceeding. In the absence of any such express indication in the judgment disposing or finally a writ petition it has to be taken that except the relief ex pressly granted, the relief or reliefs claimed other than the one which is granted stands refused and rejected. In the absence of any such express indication in the judgment disposing or finally a writ petition it has to be taken that except the relief ex pressly granted, the relief or reliefs claimed other than the one which is granted stands refused and rejected. Once this Court while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction en visaged under Article 226 of the Constitu tion of India declines to grant a relief specifically claimed by the petitioner without any reservation indicating that it is deliberately omitting to go into the merits of the claim on which the relief is founded in that case a fresh writ petition claiming the same relief on the strength of the same claim is not liable to be entertained. 12. this Court in its decision in the case of Regional Manager v. Pradeep Gael, 1992 A. W. C. 857 rendered by a Division Bench had observed that an order dismissing the writ petition as withdrawn cannot be equated with the dismissal on merits. How ever, such an order will debar the petitioner from filing a fresh writ petition for seeking the same relief which was claimed in the earlier writ petition. Relying upon the ob servations made in the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarguja Transport Ser vice v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1987 SC 88 it was indicated that a petitioner after withdrawing a writ petition held by him in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without the permission to institute a fresh petition can not file a fresh writ petition in respect of the same cause of action in the High Court under that Article. It was further clarified by this court that a decision in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India not to interfere in the impugned ac tion will come in the way of the petitioner and a fresh writ petition for the same relief will be taken to the barred by the general principles of res judicata and it will not be open to agitate the same ground which had been raised to challenge the impugned ac tion in the earlier writ petition. 13. 13. I am clearly of the opinion that a judgment disposing of a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India con stitutes the reasons for the order passed there inn and is a formal adjudication which conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the sub ject matters of the writ petition and such matters have to be deemed to have been finally adjudicated upon with the final dis posal of the writ petition with the result that any relief based on the claim raised in the writ petition which is not granted will be deemed to have been refused and this Court will be deemed to have declined to exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner in the matter in regard to the relief specifically prayed for but not granted to the petitioners except where the judgment and order disposing of the writ petition itself clearly and expressly indicates that any subject-matter is being left undecided or left to be decided. 14. Considering the facts and cir cumstances brought on record and the im plications arising under the law as noticed herein above the petitioners cannot be per mitted to agitate the same controversy as raised by them earlier and I am clearly of the view that it will amount to an abuse of the process of the Court in case the petitioners are permitted to raise the same controversy all over again in the second writ petition. 15. Further, once the petitioners had chosen to confine their claim in respect of their grievances as raised in their repre sentation referred to in the order of this Court dated 9-2- 96, there can be no juris diction for permitting them to turn around and agitate the matter in regard to the validity of the selection wherein they them selves wanted to appear. 16. In the result, this writ petition deserves to be and is here by, dismissed. Petition dismissed. .