Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1064 (GAU)

Murari Mohan Ray v. State of Assam

2012-09-07

BIPLAB KUMAR SHARMA

body2012
JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. In their relentless efforts to get the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 8 as the Director of Agriculture, Assam, the two petitioners involved in this two writ petitions have again invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing the instant writ petitions. Since, both the writ petitions are on identical facts and the relief prayed for are also the same, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. The writ petitions were admitted for hearing by order dated 29.08.2011 and recording the statements made by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 8 that the writ petitions are not maintainable, irrespective of admission of the same for hearing, the question of maintainability of the writ petitions was kept open. 2. During the course of hearing of the writ petitions learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in view of the earlier writ proceedings with the finality to the same even at the level of the Apex Court, the petitioners are precluded from re-agitating their grievance in the form of present two writ petitions. According to them, the writ petitions are misconceived and clearly barred by the principles of resjudicata and/or constructive res-judicata. 3. We may note at this stage that the earlier writ proceedings which were initiated by the petitioners were related to the matter of selection and appointment of the respondent No. 8 for the post of Director of Agriculture, Assam. The petitioner involved in W.P.(C) No. 4319/2011 had filed W.P.(C) No. 1587/2011. The said writ petition having been dismissed, he had preferred an appeal before the Apex Court which was numbered as SLP (C) No. 6933/2011. The SLP was also dismissed. Thereafter he filed another writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 3397/2011, but the same was withdrawn. Now he has filed the present writ petition. 4. So far as the petitioner in the other writ petition, i.e. W.P.(C) No. 4327/2011 is concerned, he had earlier filed W.P.(C) No. 6115/2010 questioning the selection of the respondent No. 8 to the post of Director of Agriculture, Assam. The writ petition was dismissed making a grievance against which he had preferred a writ appeal being W.A. No. 417/2010. The writ appeal also having been dismissed, he had approached the Apex Court by filing an appeal. However, the appeal being SLP (C) No. 2280/2011, was also dismissed. The writ petition was dismissed making a grievance against which he had preferred a writ appeal being W.A. No. 417/2010. The writ appeal also having been dismissed, he had approached the Apex Court by filing an appeal. However, the appeal being SLP (C) No. 2280/2011, was also dismissed. 5. Apart from the above proceedings, one Shri Amit Deori also filed two writ petitions being W.P.(C) No. 6452/2010 and W.P.(C) No. 1564/2011 challenging the selection and recommendation made in favour of the respondent No. 8 for appointment to the post of Director of Agriculture, Assam. 6. All the above writ petitions by which the selection of the respondent No. 8 was challenged having been dismissed and such dismissal being upheld by the Apex Court, it is the stand of the respondents that by way of another set of writ petitions, the same matter cannot be allowed to reopen. According to the respondents, the principle relating to finality of the judicial proceeding demands that these two writ petitions be dismissed in limine without entering into the merit of the case which has already been decided in the earlier proceedings. 7. I have heard Mr. A. Choudhury alongwith Ms. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Sr. Addl. Advocate General, Assam assisted by Ms. B. Dutta, learned State counsel. I have also heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. U.K. Nair and Mr. A. Borkatakey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 8. Mr. R.K. Talukdar, learned SC, APSC has also made his submissions. 8. During the course of hearing of the writ petitions, learned counsel for the parties have submitted various documents including the judgments and orders delivered in the earlier writ proceedings including the orders passed in the writ appeal and SLP. 9. Mr. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that irrespective of the earlier finding arrived at by this Court and the concurrence thereof by the Apex Court, in view of the subsequent disclosures made relating to qualification of the respondent No. 8 required for appointment as the Director of Agriculture, Assam, the instant writ petitions are maintainable. 9. Mr. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that irrespective of the earlier finding arrived at by this Court and the concurrence thereof by the Apex Court, in view of the subsequent disclosures made relating to qualification of the respondent No. 8 required for appointment as the Director of Agriculture, Assam, the instant writ petitions are maintainable. He submits that there being suppression of material fact on the part of the respondent No. 8 in offering his candidature for the post of Director of Agriculture, Assam and also having regard to the position of the said post presently occupied by the respondent No. 8, a writ of Quowarranto is called for. On the question of maintainability of the writ petitions, referring to two decisions of the Apex Court reported in (1) (2007) 4 SCC 221 (A.V. Papayya Sastry & Ors. Vs. Govt. of A.P. & Ors.) and (2) (2009) 7 SCC 1 (N. Kannadasan Vs. Ajoy Khose), he submits that if it is found that in the earlier proceeding there was misrepresentation and that material fact was not considered by the Court, it will not be a bar for this Court to entertain the writ petitions exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. Countering the above argument, Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Sr. Addl. Advocate General, Assam submits that both the writ petitions are not maintainable in view of the earlier judgments concluding the issue once again raised in this writ petitions. He submits that the very basis of the writ petitions is wrong and is an abuse of the process of law. According to him, the writ petitions are to be dismissed with exemplary costs. In support of his argument, he has placed reliance on two decisions of the Apex Court reported in (1) (1989) 3 SCC 151 (M/s. Kesho Ram and Co. & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.) and (2) (2005) 7 SCC 190 (Ishwar Dutt Vs. land acquisition Collector & Anr.). 11. Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel representing the respondent No. 8 has submitted that when the recommendation made in favour of the respondent No. 8 has been upheld by this Court on the basis of the same pleadings, the petitioners are not permitted to raise the same issue once again by means of the instant writ petitions. 11. Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel representing the respondent No. 8 has submitted that when the recommendation made in favour of the respondent No. 8 has been upheld by this Court on the basis of the same pleadings, the petitioners are not permitted to raise the same issue once again by means of the instant writ petitions. He submits that the particular qualification in respect of which the petitioners have agitated their grievances having already been gone into in the earlier proceedings recording the finding in favour of the respondent No. 8, the same issue cannot be allowed to be re-agitated again by filing the instant writ petitions. 12. Mr. R.K. Taluldar, learned SC, APSC has adopted the aforesaid arguments advanced by both Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No. 8. 13. The question of maintainability of the writ petitions having been raised at the very threshold of the argument necessarily reference will have to be made to the earlier proceedings which will also touch the merit of the case of the petitioners. 14. The whole basis of the series of the litigations in the matter of selection and appointment of the respondent No. 8 centres around the qualification prescribed under Rule-8 of the Recruitment Rules, namely Assam Agricultural Services Rules, 1980. As per Rule-8, academic qualification of a candidate for direct recruitment shall be as prescribed by the Governor from time to time. The qualification and experience prescribed as on the date of commencement of the Rules are to be found in Schedule-II. We are concerned with clause-1 (iii) of the Schedule to the said Rules. As per the requirement of the said clause, for the post of the Director of Agriculture, the person is required to have experience in administration of Agriculture in a senior post at least for 8 years. 15. According to the petitioners, the respondent No. 8 was lacking in the said qualification inasmuch as he had no experience in a senior post for 8 years. Another ground of attack on behalf of the petitioners is that there has been suppression of material fact on the part of the respondent No. 8 in projecting that he had the requisite experience of 8 years. Another ground of attack on behalf of the petitioners is that there has been suppression of material fact on the part of the respondent No. 8 in projecting that he had the requisite experience of 8 years. In this connection, the petitioners have referred to Annexure-P/6 letter dated 22.11.2010 addressed to one Shri Kailash Barman by the Deputy Secretary, Govt. of Assam and SPIO, Agricultural Department. By the said letter particulars furnished by the respondent No. 8 towards offering his candidature were forwarded. In the particular document, it was indicated by the respondent No. 8 that he was promoted from the post of Agricultural Extension Officer (AEO) to that of Subject Matter Specialist. It is because of this word "promoted" used by the respondent No. 8 in his document offering candidature, the case of the petitioners is that there had been misrepresentation on both the posts, i.e. Agriculture Extension Officer and Subject Matter Specialist, are in the same cadre and did not involve, any promotion in moving to the post of SMS from AEO. 16. From the above and also from the tenor of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, what is seen is that the whole basis of the writ petitions is the alleged lack of experience of the respondent No. 8 as envisaged under Clause 1 (iii) of the Schedule-II of the aforesaid Rules and the alleged suppression of the material fact as indicated above. 17. Let us now test the aforesaid two issues in the touchtone of the stand of the respondents that present writ proceeding is not maintainable as both the issues had already been gone into in the earlier proceedings. 18. As noticed above, one of the petitioners had earlier filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 6115/2010. The said writ petition was dismissed by judgment and order dated 29.11.2010. In the writ petition the challenge was the very selection and recommendation made in favour of the respondent No. 8. In paragraph -4 of the said judgment, this Court noticing the plea taken by the petitioners recorded thus: 4... The said writ petition was dismissed by judgment and order dated 29.11.2010. In the writ petition the challenge was the very selection and recommendation made in favour of the respondent No. 8. In paragraph -4 of the said judgment, this Court noticing the plea taken by the petitioners recorded thus: 4... The respondent No. 7 having been selected by the Commission and recommended for the post, the petitioner has impeached the same on the ground that he being bereft of experience in administration of Agriculture in a senior post for a period of eight years, a mandatory prescription of the Rules, his candidature was void ab initio and ought to have been rejected in limine. 12. Though the facts and particulars of the experience of respondent No. 7 as set out in tabular form in his affidavit vis-à-vis the Department of Agriculture does not indicate the nature of his duties for the post of Sr. Scientific Assistant, Agricultural Extension Officer and Subject Matter Specialist (Agro), the rest tally with those furnished by him to the Commission as is reflected by Annexure-13 to the affidavit in reply of the petitioner. As a matter of fact, this document (annexure-13) is not complete in the sense that it does not disclose the details of the respondent No. 7's experience in posts held by him under the Department of Soil Science, Assam Agriculture University, in connection with various handling research projects. The certificates dated 16.11.2010 (Annexure A and B) to his affidavit, however, set out the same. The period as the certificate (Annexure-A) would reveal spans over from 01.04.1997 to November, 2010. Apart therefrom he had held the post of Professor and Associate Professor under the university from 02.04.1990 and prior thereto. During 10.09.1980 to 01.11.1998, he had served as Sr. Scientific Assistant, Agricultural Extension Officer and Subject Matter Specialist (Agro). The certificates dated 13.10.2010 of the Director of Agriculture in favour of the petitioner affirming his required length of experience in administration of agriculture at various capacities in a senior post includes his office as Agricultural Extension Officer and Assistant Horticulturist (Junior SMS) as well. Scientific Assistant, Agricultural Extension Officer and Subject Matter Specialist (Agro). The certificates dated 13.10.2010 of the Director of Agriculture in favour of the petitioner affirming his required length of experience in administration of agriculture at various capacities in a senior post includes his office as Agricultural Extension Officer and Assistant Horticulturist (Junior SMS) as well. Though the eligibility of the petitioner is not an aspect under scrutiny, on a comparison of the posts and the duties relatable thereto as discharged by both the incumbents, the plea of absence of essential length of experience of the respondent No. 7 in administration of agriculture in a senior post does not commended for acceptance. 13... the Commission having accepted the candidature of respondent No. 7 being fully conscious of the Rules in this regard, this Court is disinclined to sustain the challenge against his eligibility. A perusal of the records of the selection maintained by the Commission does not indicate anything contrary to return a different finding. That experience in administration of agriculture permissibly comprehends one under the Agriculture University as well as underlined by this Court in Manjura Mohan Kalita (supra). The relevant portion of the rendering to this effect deserves to be extracted. Serial No. 3, in my considered opinion, cannot be read in isolation with serial No. 4, and so read it will encompass not only the experience in administration of agriculture under the Government, but also the experience in administration of agriculture under an Agriculture University where the outstanding research training or extension and education are carried on. Thus, the contention of respondent No. 3 in the affidavit in opposition that the experience in administration of agriculture under the Assam Agriculture University is not the experience in administration of agriculture as stipulated in serial No. 4 quoted above is misconceived. Firstly, in serial No. 3 quoted above, it has not been mentioned that experience in administration of agriculture should be only under the Government, but it has only been mentioned that a candidate must have experience in administration of agriculture in a senior post at least for 8 years. The word 'administration' in Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, has been defined to mean-management or conduct of an office or employment, the performance of the executive duties of an institution, business, or the like. The word 'administration' in Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, has been defined to mean-management or conduct of an office or employment, the performance of the executive duties of an institution, business, or the like. In Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary, similarly, the word 'administration' has been referred to mean-the act of administering; management, etc. Thus, experience in administration would include not only experience in government administration but also experience in other administration, such as administration under a University. 14. The reservation expressed by the petitioner based on certain omissions qua the nature of his duties as Sr. Scientific Assistant, Agricultural Extension Officer and Sub Matter Specialist (Agro) in the face of other regnant materials is of no overriding significance. The Rules do not enjoin experience in an administrative post and the certificates issued by the authorities concerned do not as such admit of any doubt of the authenticity thereof to sustain the plea of the petitioner. On a totality of the conclusions recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the view that no interference with the selection and or recommendation of the respondent No. 7 by the Commission for the post of Director of Agriculture in the State of Assam warrants interference in the exercise of its power of judicial review. The petition, therefore, lacks in merit and is dismissed- The interim restraint stands vacated. No costs. (Emphasis supplied) 19. The writ petition having been dismissed, the petitioner had approached the Division Bench by filing the writ appeal being W.A. No. 417/2010. The said writ appeal was also dismissed by judgment and order dated 23.12.2010 recording that the appellant resisted his case only on the item No. 3, i.e. experience in administration of Agriculture in a senior post of administration for 8 years and rejecting the plea of lacking of experience on the part of the respondent No. 8, observed thus: It must be noted that the advertisement mentions "experience in administration of Agriculture in a Senior Post at least for 8 years" but what is a Senior post that has not been mentioned not "experience in administration" has been specified. Respondent No. 7, from the record, seems to had a long career starting from some time 1980 onwards and has held various posts including that of Senior Scientific Assistant, Agriculture Extension Officer, SMS (Agro), Assistant Professor, Associate professor and Professor. Respondent No. 7, from the record, seems to had a long career starting from some time 1980 onwards and has held various posts including that of Senior Scientific Assistant, Agriculture Extension Officer, SMS (Agro), Assistant Professor, Associate professor and Professor. The Selection Committee, which includes an expert from the Government, would have surely looked into the materials for the purposes of determining whether respondent No. 7 met the qualifications laid down in the advertisement. 20. As against the aforesaid order of the Division Bench the petitioner approached the Apex Court by filing SLP (C) No. 2280/2011. The said SLP was dismissed by order dated 11.02.2011 with the following order: Heard Mr. F.S. Nariman, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. We find no merit in this petition for special leave. It is dismissed. 21. As noted above, one Shri Amit Deori had also questioned the selection and recommendation made in favour of the respondent No. 8. He had filed W.P.(C) No. 6452/2010, but the same was dismissed by order dated 12.01.2011. While dismissing the writ petition, the aforesaid judgment and order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 6115/ 2010 and W.A. No. 4171/2010 was duly taken note of. On being pointed out the said judgment and order, learned counsel for the petitioner sought for withdrawal of the writ petition. While allowing the said prayer, the writ petition was dismissed. Even after dismissal of the aforesaid writ petition, same very petitioner, i.e. Shri Amit Deori, filed another writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 1564/2011 and the same was also dismissed by order dated 21.03.2011. As in the earlier writ petition in the said writ petition also, the challenge was to the selection and recommendation made in favour of the respondent No. 8 for the post of Director of Agriculture, Assam. Then came the turn of the petitioner involved in W.P.(C) No. 4319/2011 who filed another writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 1587/2011. As in the earlier writ petition, in the said writ petition also the challenge was to the selection and recommendation of the respondent No. 8. The said writ petition was also dismissed by order dated 25.03.2011 noticing the aforesaid judgments and orders including dismissal of the SLP by the Apex Court by its order dated 11.02.2011 in Civil Appeal No. 2280/2011. 22. The said writ petition was also dismissed by order dated 25.03.2011 noticing the aforesaid judgments and orders including dismissal of the SLP by the Apex Court by its order dated 11.02.2011 in Civil Appeal No. 2280/2011. 22. Against the said order dated 25.03.2011 and also the Division Bench order dated 23.12.2010 passed in WA No. 417/2010, the petitioner had approached the Apex Court by filing an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 02.05.2011 with the following order: Upon hearing counsel the Court made the following order After some arguments, Mr. Huzefa Ahmedi, counsel for the petitioner in both the petitions seeks permission to withdraw these special leave potions so that petitioners may agitate their grievances by filing their representations before the concerned authorities and the State Government. The Special leave petitions are dismissed as withdrawn. 23. At this stage, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that the petitioner involved in the second writ petition, i.e. W.P.(C) No. 4327/2011, had filed a review petition in respect of the order dated 11.02.2011 by which his appeal against the Division Bench judgment and order dated 23.12.2010 passed in WA No. 417/2010 was dismissed. The said review petition was also dismissed by order dated 19.07.2011 by the following order: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1568/2011 IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 2280 of 2011 TIMOTHY HANSE (DAS)...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM & ORS....RESPONDENTS ORDER 1. This petition is filed seeking review of order dated February 11, 2011 passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2280 of 2011. 2. Prayer for oral hearing is rejected. 3. We have gone through the review petition and the record of the special leave petition. We find that the order of which review is sought does not suffer from any infirmity, much less any apparent error on the fact of the record. No case is made out for review. 4. The review petition is dismissed. 24. At this stage it will be pertinent to place on record the fact that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 4327/2011 in his rejoinder affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No. 6115/2010 had urged more or less the same grounds as has been urged in the present writ petition. No case is made out for review. 4. The review petition is dismissed. 24. At this stage it will be pertinent to place on record the fact that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 4327/2011 in his rejoinder affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No. 6115/2010 had urged more or less the same grounds as has been urged in the present writ petition. Both the points, i.e. (1) the respondent No. 8 lacks experience and (2) he has misled the APSC in offering his candidature, had been agitated with the following statements: The respondent No. 7 mentioned that he had promoted to the post of SMS (Agro) from Agricultural Extension Officer, which is misleading inasmuch as the feeder post for promotion to "Subject Matter Specialist" is "Sub-Divisional Agricultural Officer". The Annexure-c Series annexed to the preliminarily affidavit at page 23, it was noted as follows: Joined as Subject Matter Specialist (Agro), Roha on 10.11.88 vide A.D.A. (Extn.) Assam order No. Agri/Esstt./53/KB/5 dated 05.11.88. Therefore, the said Annexure-C series contradicts the contents of Annexure-4. The respondent No. 7 did not disclose as to how he promoted from the post of Agricultural Extension Officer to SMS (Agro). Hence, the posts held with effect from 09.10.80 to 31.03.90 were not Senior Posts and the nature of duty mentioned against the said posts held with effect from 09.10.80 to 31.03.90 cannot be construed to be duties discharged in an Administrative post. Therefore, such experience has no relevancy to satisfy the requirements set out in Serial No. 3 of Educational Qualification of the Advertisement dated 22.04.10, i.e. Experience in administration of Agriculture in a Senior post at least for 8 years as well as Clause 1(3) of Schedule-II of Rule 6/ Rule 8 of the Rules, 1980, which is a mandatory statutory requirement. 25. Above apart, in the earlier writ petition filed by him, i.e. W.P.(C) No. 6115/2010, while structuring his case against the selection and recommendation of the respondent No. 8, made specific pleadings urging both the grounds, i.e. lack of experience of 8 years and suppression of material fact in offering his candidature. Not only that the documents which have now been placed to put emphasis on the word "promoted" so as to contend that the respondent No. 8 wrongly represented that he was promoted to the post of Subject Matter Specialist (SMS) from Agriculture Extension Officer (AEO) was also annexed to the writ petition. 26. Not only that the documents which have now been placed to put emphasis on the word "promoted" so as to contend that the respondent No. 8 wrongly represented that he was promoted to the post of Subject Matter Specialist (SMS) from Agriculture Extension Officer (AEO) was also annexed to the writ petition. 26. In the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner involved in W.P. No. 4319/2011, i.e. W.P.(C) No. 158/2011, the whole basis of the case was the alleged lack of experience as envisaged in the Rules and misrepresentation of the actual position held by the respondent No. 8. Thus, there is absolutely no manner of doubt that the issues now raised in the two writ petitions were the issues in the earlier litigations. Yet, undaunted, the petitioners have once again raised the same issue by filing the instant writ petitions. 27. Referring to the particular notings in the file of the decision making process, Mr. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that although in one of the notings there was clear indication that the respondent No. 8 was lacking the required experience, but in the ultimate decision of the authority the said note was totally ignored. 28. I have very carefully gone through the said notings annexed to the additional affidavit filed by the petitioners. On perusal of the same, nothing is discernible that any decision was taken not to accept the recommendation of the APSC in the matter of selection and appointment of the respondent No. 8. Apart from the fact that the matter cannot be decided on the basis of the some internal notings, such notes at the intermediary stages cannot be lifted by the petitioners favouring their case. In the decision making process notes in the file are bound to be given/recorded. But it is the final decision which matters. In the instant case, recommendation made in favour of the respondent No. 8 was accepted by the Departmental Minister including the Chief Minister. That being the position, I am not inclined to accept the submissions made by Mr. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners that the decision making process was wrong. Further, consultation at the departmental level through files cannot be the subject matte of the judicial scrutiny of this Court. As has been held by the Apex Court in MD U.P. Land Development Corporation Vs. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners that the decision making process was wrong. Further, consultation at the departmental level through files cannot be the subject matte of the judicial scrutiny of this Court. As has been held by the Apex Court in MD U.P. Land Development Corporation Vs. Amar Singh reported in (2003) 5 SCC 388 , internal notes and orders of the office are meant for official purposes and shall not be produced before the Court in support of claim of the petitioner. 29. Let us now discuss the decisions on which Mr. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance. In A.V. Papayya Sastry (Supra), the Apex Court referred to the well known principle of law that if any judgment and order is obtained by fraud, it cannot be said to be judgment and order in law. The decision has been pressed into service to buttress the argument that there being misrepresentation on the part of the respondent No. 8, the earlier judgment holding the field cannot stall the instant proceeding and this Court is required to interfere with the recommendation made in favour of the respondent No. 8 for ends of justice. I am afraid, the said decision is of no help to the case of the petitioners. It is not a case of obtaining a judgment by the respondent No. 8 committing fraud on Court. As to what was his experience required for the purpose of selection, has already been gone into in the earlier proceedings and the recommendation made in his favour has also been sustained. That being the position, the petitioners cannot again reopen the matter, the same being clearly barred by the principles of resjudicata. 30. In N. Kannadasan (supra), it was held by the Apex Court that a writ of quowarranto can be issued when the holder of the public office has been appointed in violation of the Constitutional and statutory provision. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the respondent No. 8 having been appointed in violation of the statutory provisions, his appointment is required to be interfered with issuing a writ of quowarranto. Be it stated here that the respondent No. 8 has been appointed by the notification dated 30.06.2011. As to what is the statutory provision relating to appointment of the Director of Agriculture, Assam has been noted above. Be it stated here that the respondent No. 8 has been appointed by the notification dated 30.06.2011. As to what is the statutory provision relating to appointment of the Director of Agriculture, Assam has been noted above. This Court has already gone into the question of experience of the respondent No. 8 in reference to the said statutory provisions. It cannot be said that the respondent No. 8 has been recommended and appointed in violation of the statutory provisions. That apart, if this argument is allowed, same will amount to permitting the petitioners to raise the particular point again and again which will be an abuse of the process of law. 31. The decisions on which Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Sr. Addl. Advocate General has placed reliance are M/s. Kesho Ram (supra) and Ishwar Dutt (supra). In M/s. Keso Ram, the Court was concerned with the validity of the particular provision/notification. It was held that once the petitioners challenged the validity of the earlier notification, they ought to have raised all the grounds which could have been raised against the impugned notification. Emphasising the need for finality in the litigation, it was observed that finality in litigation and public policy both require that a litigant should not be permitted to challenge validity of the provisions of the Act or notification at different times on different grounds. 32. In Ishwar Dutt (supra), the Apex Court dealing with principle of resjudicata observed that once the matter which was the subject matter of lis stood determined by a competent Court, no party thereof can be permitted to reopen in a subsequent litigation. Such a rule was brought into statutory book with a view to bring the litigation to an end so that other side may not be harassed. 33. In the instant case, the issues which have been raised in the instant writ petitions having already been gone into and decided with the finality to it, the petitioners are precluded and estopped from raising the same issues again in the garb of the aforesaid order of the Apex Court by which SLP was dismissed recording the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners that they would like to make representation. Even if any representation is made and the same is decided, I am of the considered opinion that same cannot give rise a fresh cause of action to the petitioners as the issue raised in the writ petition was the reiteration of the earlier issues raised in the earlier proceeding. As has been held by the Apex Court in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education Vs. A.P. Wasar, reported in (2003) 5 SCC 321 , the issue which has become final in judicial proceedings cannot be reopened as is sought to be done in the instant case. 34. It is on record that the representation made by the petitioners has been rejected by the authority. On perusal of the pleadings and other related materials, it gives an impression that the petitioners have structured the instant writ petitions on the basis of the order of the Apex Court referred to above, i.e. the order dated 02.05.2011, quoted above. By the said order, the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the SLP recording the statement that the petitioner would prefer representation before the concerned authority. Such submission and the dismissal of the SLP has been projected to be the permission grated by the Apex Court for making representation giving rise to a fresh cause of action. Such a conduct on the part of the petitioners is unbecoming of a responsible Govt. officer. 35. For all the aforesaid reasons, I am of the firm opinion that the writ petitions are not maintainable. Filing of such writ petitions once again agitating the same issues which have attained the finality, is an abuse of the process of law. Considering the matter in its entirety and having regard to the facts and circumstance involved, I am of the considered opinion that awarding of cost is attracted in this case. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed imposing a cost of Rs. 50,000/- to each one of the petitioners which they will deposit with the Registry of this Court within one month. While the respondent No. 8 will be entitled to withdraw Rs. 50,000/- being the cost of the successive legal proceedings, the remaining amount of Rs. 50,000/- shall be credited to the account of the legal aid cell of the High Court. Both the writ petitions are dismissed imposing costs as aforesaid. Petition dismissed.