JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Shri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner at great length, Shri V.P. Varshney, learned counsel for the U.P. Public Service Commission assisted by Shri Yogendra Kumar Yadav and learned Standing Counsel. 2. The petitioner by means of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution has sought the following relief : “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the petitioner selectee and to provide the appointment on the post in question. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioner according to law with all emoluments month to month. (iii) Issue any other writ, relief to which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper may be awarded in favour of petitioner.” 3. The facts which are not disputed, as apparent from the record are that in 1989 U.P. Public Service Commission published an advertisement for making recruitment to the post of Homoeopathic Medical Officers inviting applications from the recognized Degree and Diploma Holders in Homeopathy. It appears that the aforesaid advertisement also provided that the Degree Holders shall be given preference in making selection over the Diploma Holders. The said condition was challenged in some of the writ petitions. In Dr. Sheo Narayan Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others, 1996 (3) ESC 186, a Division Bench of this Court held that the said preference is valid and the Degree Holders can be given preference over to the Diploma Holders. The selection was finalized and the result/select list was declared on 16th September, 1996 containing names of 84 candidates. The final selection was challenged in several writ petitions before this Court at Allahabad as well as at Lucknow. Writ Petition No. 34 of 1996 (SB) (Dr. Triloki Singh v. State of U.P. and others) filed before the Lucknow Bench of this Court. The Division Bench on 9th January, 1996 granted time to the respondents to file counter-affidavit and observed that the apponitment made, if any, shall be subject to the further orders of this Court. Some of the writ petitions were filed at Allahabad, namely, writ petition No. 9653 of 1996 (Dr. Jagat Prakash and another v. State of U.P. and others) and writ petition No. 9086 of 1997 (Dr. Some of the writ petitions were filed at Allahabad, namely, writ petition No. 9653 of 1996 (Dr. Jagat Prakash and another v. State of U.P. and others) and writ petition No. 9086 of 1997 (Dr. Arun Kumar Saxena v. State of U.P. and others). Both the writ petitions filed at Allahabad were dismissed by a Division Bench on 19th March, 2002 on the ground that the petitioners have challenged selection of 1989 without impleading the persons who have been selected and they are necessary parties and, therefore, in the absence of such persons, the writ petitions challenging the selection is not maintainable. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in writ petition No. 9653 of 1996, he has filed recall application which is pending. 4. However, so far as the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 9086 of 1997 is concerned, the same has attained finality as neither any application for recall of such order is pending before this Court nor we are informed that any appeal was taken before the Apex Court. 5. In the meantime, one more writ petition i.e. No. 2292 of 1997 (Dr. Yogendra Pratap Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others) filed by some persons who were holding degree in Homeopathy came up before this Court complaining that some of the persons who were Diploma Holders were also selected though the advertisement provided for preference to the Degree Holders, and the petitioner in that writ petition being Degree Holder was not selected though he was entitled for preference. This Court vide its judgment dated 31st January, 2001 allowed the writ petition observing that since the preference to Degree Holders was upheld by this Court in the case of Dr. Sheo Narain Singh (supra), therefore, it was incumbent upon the Commission to act according to the said condition of advertisement and to the extent Diploma Holders were declared successful in the select list of 1995, the vacancies, if any, available, may be made available to the Degree Holders also.The writ petition, therefore, was allowed with the following directions : “It is not clear out of 80 posts, how many posts have been filled by the Diploma Holders. The petitioners to the extent of the posts, which have been filled by the Diploma Holders are entitled to be given appointment to the posts of Homoeopathic Medical Officers, in accordance with merit amongst the Degree Holders. Sri Pushpendra Singh, learned counsel for the Commission submitted that the posts are not vacant. Sri Raj Mani Chaudhary has filed counter-affidavit on behalf of the State Government and in para 9 of the counter-affidavit it has been stated that 47 posts of the Homoeopathic Medical Officers are lying vacant at present in which two posts are of female Homoeopathic Medical Officers is also included. The writ petition is allowed and the petitioners shall be considered for appointment to the posts of Homoeopathic Medical Officers, keeping in view the above observations. The respondent No. 1 shall pass appropriate order within one month of production of certified copy of this order. Sd./- Sudhir Narain Sd./- Bhagwan Din Dt. 31.1.2001.” 6. The present petitioner Dr. Khetrapal Singh in 2005 filed a writ petition No. 67559 of 2005 (Dr. Khetrapal Singh Rajpoot v. State of U.P. and others) with the following reliefs : “(1) A writ, direction or order in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the impugned result dated 16.9.1995 (Annexure-8 of the writ petition) on the basis of substantial question raised in para 7 of the petition. (2) A writ, direction or order in the nature of writ of certiorari declaring the Rule 8 of the U.P. Homeopathic Medical Service Rules, 1990 ultra vires (Annexure 5 of petition) on the basis of resolution dated 9.3.1990 communicated vide letter dated 31.1.1991 (Annexure-11 of petition), letter of respondent No. 1 (Annexure-4 of the petition), and consent of respondent No. 3 itself (Annexure-6 of the petition). (3) A writ, direction or order in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to delete the Rule 8 from U.P. Homeopathic Medical Service Rules, 1990. (4) A writ, direction or order in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to treat B.M.S. equivalent in respect of appointment in service and in service condition, on the basis of aforesaid Resolution and consent. (5) A writ, direction or order in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post in question. (5) A writ, direction or order in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post in question. Or Any other writ, order or direction to the respondents to protect the right and juustice of the petitioner and compensating the damage of the petitioner of being deprived of so many years its legal right of appointment on the post in question. (6) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper may be awarded in favour of the petitioner. (7) The cost of the petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 7. The said writ petition was heard by a Division Bench and was dismissed vide judgment dated 25.10.2005 on the ground of laches as well as non-joinder of necessary parties. It would be appropriate to reproduce the said order, which is as under : “This is a writ petition against selection made in year 1996. We have heard counsel for the petitioner, the Standing Counsel and Sri V.P. Varshney for the respondents. This writ petition has been filed after ten years of the selection. The persons who have been selected are not impleaded as party. In the circumstances, it is not a fit case to interfere. The writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- Yatindra Singh, J. Sd/- R.K. Rastogi, J. Dated : 25.10.2005" 8. Thereafter, the petitioner now has filed the present writ petition. Comparing the reliefs sought in the earlier writ petition and the present one, we find that the relief Nos. 4 and 5 in the earlier petition are similar to that of the present writ petition. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present writ petition is not based on the similar facts and reliefs but cause of action is different and relief is also different, is not correct and in fact contrary to record. We find that the relief sought in this writ petition in substance included the relief sought in the earlier writ petition which has already been dismissed. Besides seeking mandamus for appointment and treating the petitioner in service, in the earlier writ petition, he also challenged the select list as well as vires i.e. validity of Rule 8(2) of the Service Rules and further mandamus to appoint him. Besides seeking mandamus for appointment and treating the petitioner in service, in the earlier writ petition, he also challenged the select list as well as vires i.e. validity of Rule 8(2) of the Service Rules and further mandamus to appoint him. Mere exclusion of some relief sought in the earlier writ petition which has already been decided and seeking in substance similar relief in successive petition would not make the second petition different from the earlier one. It is now well-settled that successive writ petitions for the same cause of action are not maintainable and cannot be entertained by this Court as held in Buddhi Kota Subbarao v. Dr. V.K. Parasaran and others, AIR 1996 SC 2687 ; T.N. Electricity Board and another v. N. Raju Reddiar and another, AIR 1997 SC 1005 ; K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi and others, AIR 1998 SC 1297 : 1998 (3) SCC 573 and Major Jasbinder Singh Bala v. IInd A.D.J., Ghaziabad and others, 2006 (2) AWC 1545 . 9. In fact, we find that not only the relief and prayer sought by the petitioner in the present writ petition is similar which was made in the earlier one but in fact in a camouflage manner, the second writ petition has been drafted covering the issue which this Court has already declined. Chapter XII Rule 7 of the Rules of the Court does not permit filing of second writ petition in respect of same relief. 10. Besides it, we also find that the petitioner is guilty of serious delay and laches. It is not in dispute that selection was notified in 1989 which was finalized in the year 1995 and the appointments pursuant to the said selection have already been made long back. The present writ petition has been filed in September, 2006. The petitioner is seeking selection and appointment pursuant to the advertisement made in the year 1989 i.e. after 17 years. 11. Instead of referring to the catena of decision on this question, we propose to mention a recent decision in Vyalikaval House Building Co-op. The present writ petition has been filed in September, 2006. The petitioner is seeking selection and appointment pursuant to the advertisement made in the year 1989 i.e. after 17 years. 11. Instead of referring to the catena of decision on this question, we propose to mention a recent decision in Vyalikaval House Building Co-op. Society v. V. Chandrappa and others, AIR 2007 SC 1151 , wherein the Apex Court after referring earlier judgments on the point, has said where the petitioner is guilty of serious delay and laches, he lose his substantive right to get relief from the Court; and under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court cannot ignore the matter of delay and laches; and in case where the petitioner is found guilty of such laches, the writ petition has to be dismissed. 12. Even on merits, we do not find any reason to interfere and in our view the issues having already been settled at rest, this writ petition is thoroughly misconceived and ill advised. The petitioner is admittedly a Diploma Holder. The questio as to whether the Degree Holders can be validly given preference over the Diploma Holders, has been settled favourably by the Division Bench in Dr. Sheo Narain Singh (supra) which has been held valid in Dr. Yogendra Pratap Singh (supra). Once that issue has already been finalized, and the petitioner being Diploma Holder was not selected, he has no right to rake up the same issue again and again by filing successive writ petitions. 13. Further submission that since some of the Diploma Holders have been selected, the petitioner should also have been selected is also thoroughly misconceived. Petitioner’s counsel submitted that he derived this fact for the first time from the judgment of this Court in Dr. Yogendra Pratap Singh (supra) and, therefore, to this extent the cause of action arose to him only in 2005 and writ petition filed in 2006 is not bad on account of delay and laches. The submission is thoroughly misconceived. It appears that the petitioner completely failed to appreciate consequences of judgment in Dr. Yogendra Pratap Singh (supra). Yogendra Pratap Singh (supra) and, therefore, to this extent the cause of action arose to him only in 2005 and writ petition filed in 2006 is not bad on account of delay and laches. The submission is thoroughly misconceived. It appears that the petitioner completely failed to appreciate consequences of judgment in Dr. Yogendra Pratap Singh (supra). This Court did not approve selection and appointment of Diploma Holders without considering the question of preference to other Degree Holders but what it said is that if some Diploma Holders have actually been appointed in that case to the extent vacancies are available, the Degree Holders in the light of the conditions of advertisement be considered for appointment. This judgment, therefore, firstly do not apply and provide any assistance to the petitioner who is not a Degree Holder and secondly merely because some Diploma Holders were appointed, the petitioner cannot claim suo motu selection. It is not his case that the Diploma Holders selected were less meritorious to the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner be deemed to have been selected. In the absence of any such averment and material on record, if some Diploma Holders having higher merits are selected, the petitioner cannot have any complaint. Thirdly, if some mistake has been committed by the respondent Commission in selecting Diploma Holders though Degree Holders with the claim of preference were available, that would not entitle the petitioner to seek a writ of mandamus inasmuch as this Court will not issue a writ of mandamus to the authorities to commit mistake again and again. It is well-settled that Article 14 of the Constitution has no application for claiming parity in respect to an illegal or wrong act. Two wrongs does not make one right [see M/s. Anand Buttons Ltd. etc. v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 2005 SC 565 (Para 12) and Kastha Niwarak G.S.S. Maryadit, Indore v. President, Indore Development Authority, AIR 2006 SC 1142 (Para 8)]. 14. We do not find any merit in this writ petition. On the contrary, we find that the petitioner is guilty of not only filing successive writ petition but also of misleading this Court by twisting and camouflages. 14. We do not find any merit in this writ petition. On the contrary, we find that the petitioner is guilty of not only filing successive writ petition but also of misleading this Court by twisting and camouflages. Such an approach by the petitioner who is well educated person and had good legal assistance also is nothing but gross abuse of the process of law besides wastage of Court’s precious time which could have been utilized for deciding other deserving cases. Such an attitude of the litigant deserves to be curbed. It is a fit case where this Court must impose exemplary costs so that such persons may deter from wasting precious public time which may be utilised for other substantial matters where the litigants are waiting for their turn to get justice. 15. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/-. ————