JUDGMENT : A.K. Patnaik, J. - The petitioner was working as Personal Assistant to the Vice-chancellor of Orissa Agricultural of University & Technology (in short "the O.U.A.T."), Bhubaneswar. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner for mis-conduct and he was removed from service by order dated 30.3.1973 of the Vice-Chancellor of the O.U.A.T. 2. The petitioner filed a writ petition in O.J.C. No. 1234 of 1974 challenging the order of removal and the writ petition was dismissed on 25.8.1976 by this Court. He challenged the order of dismissal passed by this Court before the Supreme Court in S.L.R No. 763 of 1977 but did not succeed in his challenge. Thereafter, he submitted a representation to the Board of Management of O.U.A.T. on 29.4.1981. When the said representation was not considered by the Board of Management, the petitioner filed a writ petition O.J.C. No. 1136 of 1990 before this Court and by order dated 26.8.1992, this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the O.U.A.T. to dispose of the representation of the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of the order if the same had not been disposed of. The Vice-Chancellor, O.U.A.T. then placed the representation of the petitioner before the Board of Management and a Sub-Committee was constituted to take a decision on the grievance of the petitioner. The Sub-Committee, could not submit a report on account of the ailment of its Chairman and without waiting for the report of the Sub-Committee the representation Chakradhar Mohapatra v. The Vice-Chnclr. & Chrman., O.U.A.T. of the petitioner was rejected by the Board of Management. The petitioner then filed another writ petition O.J.C. No. 866 of 1993 and by order dated 29.3.1996, this Court directed that a fresh Sub-Committee will be constituted which will submit a report to the Board of Management and the matter shall be decided by the Board of Management within two months from the date of receipt of the report of the Sub-Committee. The Sub-Committee so constituted submitted its report dated 26.8.1996. In the said report, the Sub-Committee observed that it did not find any material to entertain the representation of the petitioner and felt that the case of the petitioner should be rejected finally. The Board of management of O.U.A.T. accepted the said report of the Sub-Committee by its resolution dated 30.10.1996. The Sub-Committee so constituted submitted its report dated 26.8.1996. In the said report, the Sub-Committee observed that it did not find any material to entertain the representation of the petitioner and felt that the case of the petitioner should be rejected finally. The Board of management of O.U.A.T. accepted the said report of the Sub-Committee by its resolution dated 30.10.1996. By a communication dated 4.12.1996, the Registrar, O.U.A.T. informed the petitioner about the aforesaid decision of the Board of Management. 3. The petitioner again filed a writ petition O.J.C. No. 14355 of 1996 praying for quashing the said report of the Sub-Committee dated 26.8.1996 and the communication dated 4.12.1996 of the Registrar, O.U.A.T. and the order of removal dated 30.7.1973 of the Vice-Chancellor. On 2.1.1997, this Court issued notice in the said writ petition (O.J.C. No. 14355 of 1996) to the opp. parties on the question of admission. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the opp. parties and a rejoinder to the said counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioner in the said O.J.C. No. 14355 of 1996. On 17.2.1999, this Court dismissed the writ petition after making the following observations : "........ But in the instant case, in spite of all reasonable opportunities and placing of records at all relevant/ material points of time, the judiciary decided not less than four times on repeated writ applications and the petitioner has not succeeded. All the issues had been decided in broader and greater perspective. We are of the view that if we admit this writ application there will be more harm to the petitioner than his getting any relief. The fond hope that a matter is pending after twentyfive years of sojourn journey would be a travesty of justice." Aggrieved by the said order dated 17.2.1999 of this Court dismissing the O.J.C. No. 14355 of 1996, the petitioner filed SLP (C) No. 16804 of 1999 before the Supreme Court, but the said SLP was dismissed on 28.1.2000. The petitioner then filed a writ petition (Civil) 19146 of 2000 before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, but by order dated 20.8.2001 the Supreme Chakradhar Mohapatra v. The Vice-Chnclr. & Chrman., O.U.A.T. Court dismissed the writ petition. The petitioner then filed a writ petition (Civil) 19146 of 2000 before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, but by order dated 20.8.2001 the Supreme Chakradhar Mohapatra v. The Vice-Chnclr. & Chrman., O.U.A.T. Court dismissed the writ petition. The order dated 20.8.2001 of the Supreme Court in the said writ petition (civil) No. 19146 of 2001 is quoted hereunder : "Since the SLP (C) No. 16804/99 was dismissed by this Court on 28th January, 2000, the present petition under Article 32 of the Constitution would not lie. Hence, for this reason, we dismiss this writ petition. However, this is without prejudice of the right of the petitioner to seek his remedy, if available, by any other way in accordance with law." 4. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order of removal praying for quashing the report of the Sub-Committee dated 26.8.1996 and the resolution dated 30.10.1996 of the Board of Management accepting the said report and for declaring the petitioner as still continuing in service till the date of superannuation with consequential benefits of service, salary, allowances and other service benefits like, leave, medical facilities and other facilities including usual pensionary benefits. The petitioner, who appeared in person, submitted that the order dated 20.8.2001 of the Supreme Court in the writ petition (Civil) D19146 of 2000 would show that the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution was dismissed by the Supreme Court with the observation that this would not prejudice the right of the petitioner to seek the remedy, if available, by any other way in accordance with law and has therefore, approached this Court in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for relief. He further argued that in the earlier writ petition O.J.C. No. 14355 of 1996, this Court has not considered the contentions of the parties on merits. According to the petitioner, the Court should have carefully read the writ petition, the grounds raised in it, the counter affidavit of the opp. He further argued that in the earlier writ petition O.J.C. No. 14355 of 1996, this Court has not considered the contentions of the parties on merits. According to the petitioner, the Court should have carefully read the writ petition, the grounds raised in it, the counter affidavit of the opp. parties and after hearing the arguments of both the sides should have recorded the concise statement of facts of the case, point for determination and the decision thereon with reasons, but a reading of the order dated 17.2.1999 passed in O.J.C. No. 14355 of 1996 would show that the Court has not considered the writ petition, counter affidavits and the arguments of both the sides and has not decided the points for determination. He further submitted that it is true that the order dated 17.2.1999 passed in O.J.C. No. 14355 of 1996 was challenged before the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 16804 of 1999 and the said SLP was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 28.1.2000, but the said SLP was dismissed in limine and, therefore, there is Chakradhar Mohapatra v. The Vice-Chnclr. & Chrman., O.U.A.T. no difficulty in considering the writ petition again under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. In the earlier writ petition (O.J.C. No. 14355 of 1996) the subject-matter was the same as in the present writ petition. In the earlier writ petition (O.J.C. No. 14355 of 1996) the petitioner had prayed for quashing the report of the Sub-Committee dated 26.8.1996 and the order dated 30.3.1974 of the Vice-Chancellor, O.U.A.T. removing the petitioner from service with effect from 1.4.1974. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has also prayed for quashing the report of the Sub-Committee dated 26.8.1996 and for declaring the petitioner as continuing in service till the date of superannuation with consequential promotional benefits of service salary, allowances and other service benefits. The earlier writ petition (O.J.C. No. 14355 of 1996) was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 17.2.1999 for the reasons indicated in the said order. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Civil Review No. 33 of 1999 against the said order dated 17.2.1999 which was also dismissed on 29.6.99. The petitioner challenged the orders passed by this Court in SLP(C) No. 16804 of 1999 which was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 28.1.2000. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Civil Review No. 33 of 1999 against the said order dated 17.2.1999 which was also dismissed on 29.6.99. The petitioner challenged the orders passed by this Court in SLP(C) No. 16804 of 1999 which was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 28.1.2000. Thus, the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 17.2.1999 dismissing the earlier writ petition (O.J.C. No. 14355 of 1996) has attained finality arid this Court cannot entertain a fresh writ petition on the same subject-matter as in the earlier writ petition (O.J.C. No. 14355 of 1996). 6. In State of U.P. and another Vs. Labh Chand, the Supreme Court after considering its earlier decisions on the point held : "20. When a Judge of single Judge Bench of a High Court is required to entertain a Second Writ Petition of a person on a matter, he cannot, as a matter of course, entertain such petition, if an earlier writ petition of the same person on the same matter had been dismissed already by another single Judge Bench or a Division Bench of the same High Court, even if such dismissal was on the ground of laches or on the ground of non-availing of alternate remedy. Second writ petition cannot be so entertained not because the learned single Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain the same, but because entertaining of such a second writ petition would render the order of the same Court dismissing the earlier writ petition redundant and nugatory, although not reviewed by it in exercise of the recognised power. Besides, if a learned single Judge could entertain a second writ petition of a person respecting a matter on which his first writ petition was dismissed in limine by another learned single Judge or a Division Bench of the same Court, it would encourage an unsuccessful writ petitioner to go on filing writ petition after writ petition in the same matter in the same High Court, and have it brought up far consideration before one Judge after another. Such a thing, it is allowed to happen, it could result in giving full scope and encouragement to an unscrupulous litigant to abuse the process of the High Court exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in that any order of any Bench of such Court refusing to entertain a writ petition could be ignored by him with impunity and relief sought in the same matter by filing a fresh writ petition. This would only lead to introduction of disorder, confusion and chaos relating to exercise of writ jurisdiction by Judges of the High Court for there could be no finality for an order of the Court refusing to entertain a writ petition. It is why, the Rule of judicial practice and procedure that a second writ petition shall not be entertained by the High Court on the subject-matter respecting which the first writ petition of the same person was dismissed by the same Court even if the order of such dismissal was in limine, be it on the ground of laches or on the ground of non-exhaustion of alternate remedy, has come to be accepted and followed as salutary Rule in exercise of writ jurisdiction of Courts." 7. It is true as has been submitted by the petitioner that by the order dated 20.8.2001 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. D19146 of 2001, the Supreme Court while dismissing the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution has observed that the order dismissing the writ petition is without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to seek his remedy if available by any other way in accordance with law. But the remedy of the petitioner by way of a fresh writ petition in respect of the same subject-matter as in the earlier writ petition (O.J.C. No. 14355 of 1996), as discussed above, is not available under law. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, we cannot under law entertain this writ petition and, therefore, we dismiss the same. M. Papanna, J. 9. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed