These 4 (four) writ petitions, which relate with the DPC meeting for recruitment of 11 (eleven) posts of Physical Education Teachers (for short PETs) in the Directorate of Youth Affairs & Sports, Government of Manipur from 13.10.1999 to 19.10.1999 are taken up jointly for disposal by a common judgment and order. [2] Heard Mr. S. Rupachandra and Mr. N. Jotendro, learned counsel for all the writ petitioners and Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned GA appearing for all the respondents in all the writ petitions. [3] The fact of these writ petitions (four in numbers) are similar and for convenience, this court referred to the fact of the case in WP© No.627 of 2003 in passing this common judgment and order. [4] The short factual panorama of the petitioner's case is that vide notification issued by the Director of Youth Affairs & Sports, Government of Manipur dated 1.10.1999 DPC meeting for recruitment of 11 (eleven) posts of Physical Education Teacher (for short P.E.T) scheduled to be held from 4.10.1999 had been postponed and DPC would be held from 13.10.1999 to 19.10.1999. The petitioner being eligible to be appointed as PET also appeared along with other eligible candidates before the said DPC for appointment to the eleven posts of PET in the Directorate of Youth Affairs & Sports, Government of Manipur. [5] Some of the candidates had challenged the proceeding of the said DPC held from 13.10.1999 to 19.10.1999 by filing writ petition being WP© No.1316 of 1999 on the main ground that only viva voce test was held for selection of candidates by the said DPC for appointment to the post of PETs. It is said that this court passed an interim order dated 28.10.1999 in the said WP© No.1316 of 1999 not to fill up the posts of PETs. On a Misc Application being No.643 of 1999 filed by two candidates who had appeared in the said DPC held from 13.10.1999 to 19.10.1999, this court passed final judgment and order dated 14.2.2000 for disposing not only the said Misc Application No.643 of 1999 but also the main Writ Petition No.1316 of 1999. The final judgment and order of this court dated 14.2.2000 reads as follows: “ This application has been filed for vacating the earlier order of stay dated 28.10.99 passed by this court in WP© No.1316/99. The final judgment and order of this court dated 14.2.2000 reads as follows: “ This application has been filed for vacating the earlier order of stay dated 28.10.99 passed by this court in WP© No.1316/99. The only point urged by the writ petitioner is that the authority has not held a written examination to fill up the post of physical Education Instructor on the plea that the recruitment rules does not provide for such examination. No mandamus can be granted to hold a written examination. Even in the absence of written examination, there can be fairness and transparency. As a matter of fact the law has been settled that the authority by way of interview can fill up a post. The method of interview itself may be fair and transparent if the petitioner is aggrieved he may approach this court again. Accordingly the earlier stay order shall stand vacated. Already the (sic) interview is over and as such the posts shall be filled up on that basis. This Civil Rule is disposed of for the reasons given in the miscellaneous case.” [6] From bare perusal of the final judgment and order of this court dated 14.2.2000 it appears that observation had been made by this court that the eleven posts of PETs should be filled up on the basis of the select list prepared by the said DPC held from 13.10.1999 to 19.10.1999. [7] Further, the present petitioner along with 7 (seven) others also had already approached this court by filing a joint writ petition being WP© No.900 of 2002 against the present respondents for a direction to declare result of the said DPC held from 13.10.1999 to 19.10.1999 for recruitment to the eleven posts of PETs in the Directorate of Youth Affairs & Sports, Government of Manipur. In the said Writ Petition No.900 of 2002 the respondents filed their Affidavit-in-opposition stating that vide order dated 14.2.2003 (present impugned order) proceeding of the said DPC held from 13.10.1999 to 19.10.1999 for selection of candidate for appointment to the eleven posts of PETs by direct recruitment in the Directorate of Youth Affairs & Sports, Government of Manipur had already been cancelled. It is stated that the petitioners came to know for the first time about the impugned order dated 14.2.2003 from the Affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents in WP© No.900 of 2002. It is stated that the petitioners came to know for the first time about the impugned order dated 14.2.2003 from the Affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents in WP© No.900 of 2002. [8] Koijam Sushila Devi, one of the candidates appeared before the DPC held from 13.10.1999 to 19.10.1999 for appointment to the post of eleven posts of PETs had also approached this court by filing writ petition being WP© No.978 of 2000 against the present respondents for a direction to declare result of the said DPC, this court by passing order dated 20.9.2000 had finally disposed of the same by directing the respondents to declare result of the said DPC and appoint recommended candidates as per the result of the DPC after lifting the ban. The said order of this court dated 20.9.2000 passed in WP© No.978 of 2000 reads as follows: “ Heard Mr. N.Jotendro, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. R.S.Reisang, learned Addl.GA for the respondents. The petitioner has approached this court for giving a direction to the respondents for making the result of the DPC held from 13th to 19th October, 1999 for appointment to the post of Physical Education Teacher (PED) public Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned Addl.G.A. has submitted that the result of the said DPC could not be announced as per order of the government banning announcement of any DPC result. Now, Mr. Jotendro Singh has (sic) submitted that a direction may be given for making the result public just after lifting the ban. Accordingly ordered so. The writ petition stands disposed of.” [9] It is admitted case of both the parties that none of the parties had filed appeal or review against the final judgment and order of this court dated 20.9.2000 passed in WP© No.978 of 2000 till date and as such, the order of this court dated 20.9.2000 had attained finality. [10] The Government of Manipur issued order being No.16/21/2001-PIC(A) dated 11th July, 2001 on the recommendation of duly constituted Committee consisting of: (1)Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur - Chairman, (2) Additional Chief Secretary (I) - Member, (3) Additional Chief Secretary (II) - Member, (4) Principal Secretary (Finance) - Member and (5) Commissioner (DP) - Member for downsizing or right sizing of the number of posts/employees in different departments of the Government of Manipur. In pursuance of the said order of Government of Manipur dated 11.7.2001 a number of posts in different departments of Government of Manipur had been abolished but the said eleven posts of PETs for which DPC held its meeting from 13.10.1999 to 19.10.1999 had not been abolished. It is also case of the petitioner that in para no.5 of the said order of Government of Manipur dated 11.7.2001 it is clearly mentioned that the said order of Government of Manipur dated 11.7.2001 shall not be applicable to the cases involving Court's direction and, such being the situation, the order of Government of Manipur dated 11.7.2001 shall not be applicable to the said proceeding of the DPC held from 13.10.1999 to 19.10.1999 for appointment to eleven posts of PETs inasmuch as this court had already passed final judgment and order dated 14.2.2000 in WP© No.1316 of 1999 which has been quoted in entirety and also the order of this court dated 20.9.2000 in WP© No.978 of 2000 which is also quoted above in entirety. [11] In the above factual context the petitioner filed the present petition for assailing the impugned order of Government of Manipur dated 14.2.2000 on the main fulcrum that so far as the matter relating with the declaration of the result of the said DPC held from 13.10.1999 to 19.10.1999 had already been decided finally by this court in the judgment and order of this court dated 20.9.2000 passed in WP© No.978 of 2000. Those judgment and orders still holds good and the respondents cannot re agitate the matter for declaration of the result of the said DPC, and they are barred from taking different decision by res judicata and estoppel and also that the State respondents cannot reopen the matter which were finally settled by earlier order and decision of this court. In order to substantiate case of the petitioner, Mr. Rupachandra, learned counsel for the petitioner placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in (1) Delhi Development Authority Vs Skipper Construction Company (P) Ltd & Anr : AIR 1996 SC 2005 and (2) Hope Plantations Ltd Vs Taluk Land Board, Permade & Anr : 1998 (8) Supreme 309 . Rupachandra, learned counsel for the petitioner placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in (1) Delhi Development Authority Vs Skipper Construction Company (P) Ltd & Anr : AIR 1996 SC 2005 and (2) Hope Plantations Ltd Vs Taluk Land Board, Permade & Anr : 1998 (8) Supreme 309 . [12] The Apex Court in Hope Plantations Ltd Vs Taluk Land Board, Permade & Anr : 1998 (8) Supreme (supra) held that the principle of estoppel and res judicata are based on public policy and justice. The doctrine of res judicata is often treated as a branch of the law of estoppel though these two doctrines differ in some essential particulars. Rule of res judicata prevents the parties to a judicial determination from litigating the same question over again even though the determination may even be demonstratedly wrong. When the proceedings have attained finality, parties are bound by the judgment and are stopped from questioning it. They cannot litigate again on the same cause of action nor can they litigate any issue which was necessary for decision in the earlier litigation. These two aspects are 'cause of action estoppel' and 'issue estoppel'. These two terms are of common law origin. Again once an issue has been finally determined, parties cannot subsequently in the same suit advance arguments or adduce further evidence directed to showing that issue was wrongly determined. Their only remedy is to approach the higher forum if available. The determination of the issue between the parties gives rise to, as noted above, an issue estoppel. It operates in any subsequent proceedings in the same suit in which the issue had been determined. In the present case, since rightly or wrongly, the issue regarding the declaration of the result of the said DPC held from 13.10.1999 to 19.10.1999 had already been decided by this court in the two judgments mentioned above in the writ petitions in which the present respondents are the respondents, this court is of the considered view that the respondents are stopped for questioning about the earlier order of this court directing the respondents to declare the result of the said DPC and further, they are stopped from taking any decision contrary to the direction of this court made in the earlier judgment and order. [13] The Apex Court in Delhi Development Authority Vs Skipper Construction Company (P) Ltd & Anr (supra) held that the Apex Court while acting under Article 142 of the Constitution of India was of the view that the order and decision of the court which has attained finality ought not to be reopened. For the sake of repetition, this court is again making an observation that this court by exercising power under Article 226 of the constitution is not re opening the earlier decision of this court mentioned above. [14] In other words this court is not reopening the direction of this court in the earlier writ petition mentioned above, to declare the result of the DPC held from 13.10.1999 to 19.10.1999 for recruitment to the eleven posts of PETs in the Directorate of Youth Affairs & Sports, Government of Manipur. [15] From perusal of the said order of the Government of Manipur dated 11.7.2001, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-A/6 to the present writ petition, it is clear that eleven posts of PETs, for which the said DPC was held are not included in the posts in the Directorate of Youth Affairs & Sports, which are to be abolished on the recommendation of the Committee consisting of (1)Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur - Chairman, (2) Additional Chief Secretary (I) - Member, (3) Additional Chief Secretary (II) - Member, (4) Principal Secretary (Finance) - Member and (5) Commissioner (DP) - Member and it is also clearly mentioned in para 5 of the said order of Government of Manipur that the effect of down sizing and right sizing of the posts in different departments of Government of Manipur under the said order of Government of Manipur dated 11.7.2001 shall not be applicable to the cases involving court's direction. It is also clear that the said order of Government of Manipur dated 11.7.2001 was passed as a follow up action of the order of Government of Manipur dated 19.3.2001. It is also clear that the said order of Government of Manipur dated 11.7.2001 was passed as a follow up action of the order of Government of Manipur dated 19.3.2001. Para 4 of the order of Government of Manipur dated 19.3.2001 is also not applicable in the proceeding of the said DPC held from 13.10.1999 to 19.10.1999 in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case such as existence of earlier order of this court dated 20.9.2000 passed in WP© No.978 of 2000 and judgment and order dated 14.2.2000 passed in WP© No.1316 of 1999 and subsequent orders of Government of Manipur dated 11.7.2001. [16] Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above and also the earlier order of this court, this court is of the considered view that interference to the impugned order of Government of Manipur is called for. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 14.2.2000 is hereby quashed and set aside. [17] In Writ Petition © No.364 of 2003 the petitioners are seeking the relief for a direction to the respondents to declare the result of the DPC for the said eleven posts of PETs which was held from 13.10.1999 to 19.10.1999 in view of the order of this court passed in WP© No.978 of 2000 by relaxing the ban imposed by the Government as had been done to other similarly situated cases. As discussed above, the writ petitioner cannot re-open the final judgment and order of this court dated 20.9.2000 passed in WP© No.978 of 2000 that the result of the DPC shall be public after lifting of the ban. In the result, this court cannot entertain the prayer of the petitioner for directing the respondents to relax the ban imposed by the Government. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. [18] In WP© No.585 of 2003 the petitioners are assailing the impugned order dated 14.2.2003 issued by the Government of Manipur for canceling the proceeding of the DPC held from 13.10.1999 to 19.10.1999 for appointment to the eleven posts of PETs in the Directorate of Youth Affairs & Sports, Government of Manipur. For the reasons discussed above in WP© No.627 of 2003 the impugned order dated 14.2.2000 is hereby quashed and set aside. [19] In WP© No.900 of 2002 the petitioners are praying for implementation of the judgment and order of this court dated 14.2.2000 passed in WP© No.1316 of 1999. For the reasons discussed above in WP© No.627 of 2003 the impugned order dated 14.2.2000 is hereby quashed and set aside. [19] In WP© No.900 of 2002 the petitioners are praying for implementation of the judgment and order of this court dated 14.2.2000 passed in WP© No.1316 of 1999. For the reasons discussed above, the respondents are directed to implement the judgment and order of this court dated 14.2.2000 as soon as the ban imposed by the Government on direct recruitment is lifted. The respondents should keep in view of the decision of the Apex Court in State of UP Vs Ram Swarup Swamy : (2000) 3 SCC 699 that the claim of the candidate including panels cannot be defeated because currency of the penal expires during the pendency of the litigation when the candidate stake his claim during the currency of the panel. Accordingly, Writ Petition © No. 900 of 2002 is allowed. Parties are to bear their own costs.