A.M. Sapre, CJ. – This is an intra -- court appeal filed by the writ petitioner of WP(C) No. 7154 of 2013 under Rule 2(3) of Chapter V -- A of the Gauhati High Court Rules against the order dated 09.12.2013 passed by the Single Judge in abovementioned writ petition. 2. By impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the appellant's writ petition and declined to grant him the relief prayed in the writ petition. 3. So the short question, which arises for consideration in this writ appeal, is whether learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the appellant's writ petition? 4. Instead of repeating the facts involved in the case in the order, we consider it apposite to reproduce the impugned order, which not only contains the facts but also the reasoning, which led to dismissal of the appellant's writ petition. Since the impugned order is a short one, it is proper to reproduce the same in its entirety in verbatim infra. “Heard Mr. G Uzir, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned AAG, Assam along with Mr. A. Deka, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner, which is an association in the name and style of All Assam Graduate Hindi Sikshan Parangat (Equivalent B. ED) Teachers Association, Assam, has prayed for a direction to the respondents to declare their Hindi qualification as equivalent to B. Ed. and M. Ed in terms of Annexure-B Office Memorandum dated 12.04.1967. When Mr. G Uzir, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the given facts and circumstances, such a declaration is called for, Mr. D. Saikia, learned AAQ Assam, referring to the earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 27.06.2011 passed in WP(C) No. 2207/2011 submits that the issue is no -- longer resintegra and has been decided by the Division Bench. In the said judgment, it has been categorically held thus:- “Hindi Shikshan Parangat, therefore, is recognized for a specific purpose and it cannot be construed as equivalent to a B .T. or B .Ed. Degree of the University which is general in application. There is a rational basis for making Hindi Shikshan Parangat limited to the specific purpose of teaching Hindi. We see no reason to accept the contention of the petitioner that there is discrimination against a Hindi Shikshan Parangat as against a BT/B.Ed. Degree of the University which is general in application. There is a rational basis for making Hindi Shikshan Parangat limited to the specific purpose of teaching Hindi. We see no reason to accept the contention of the petitioner that there is discrimination against a Hindi Shikshan Parangat as against a BT/B.Ed. degree, since the two are completely different and cannot be construed to be the same.” Above being the findings of the Division Bench, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition, although Mr. Uzir, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the earlier proceeding, Union of India was not party respondent and thus the actual fact could not be placed, Mr. Saikia, learned AAG, Assam has also produced the order dated 20.06.2013 passed by the Division Bench in RP No. 77/2013 that was filed against the aforesaid judgment. The review application has also been dismissed by order dated 30.06.2013. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to entertain once again the same very issue as already been decided by the Division Bench. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.” 6. The main grievance for which the appellant had filed the writ petition out of which this appeal arises was that the Hindi qualification be treated as equivalent to B.Ed/M.Ed. in terms of one office memorandum dated 12.4.1967 issued by the State. 7. This prayer of the appellant (writ petitioner) was rejected by the writ court on the ground that similar prayer was made earlier by another writ petitioner in one writ petition being W.P.No. 2207/2011 and the same was declined by the writ court by order dt 27.6.2011 and later upheld when review filed against the said order was also dismissed by the division bench on 30.6.2013 in RP No. 77/2013. 8. In this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant (writ petitioner) was not able to dispute the aforesaid factual position arising in the case. His only argument was that since in the earlier litigation Union of India was not made party and hence such decision was not binding on the parties while prosecuting this litigation. 9. We do not agree to this submission. In our view, when the controversy in question was already subject matter of the earlier litigation and attained finality, the same controversy could not be allowed to be racked up subsequently at the instance of other person. 9. We do not agree to this submission. In our view, when the controversy in question was already subject matter of the earlier litigation and attained finality, the same controversy could not be allowed to be racked up subsequently at the instance of other person. The earlier order in our opinion was binding on the parties while prosecuting the subsequent litigation on the same issue because the issue raised in certain litigations had a binding force and thus remained no longer res Integra. 10. The fine distinction sought to be made out by the learned counsel for the appellant for sustaining their writ petition on merits that since the Union of India was not made party in the earlier litigation and now made party in the present one and hence this court should entertain the writ petition/appeal on merits to examine the question again is not acceptable. It is for the reason, that firstly Union of India was neither necessary and nor proper party for deciding the issue, secondly: all the necessary parties were heard and then the issue was decided by the Division Bench: thirdly even the review court did not find any merit in this submission to recall their main order passed in the writ petition and lastly once the decision on any particular issue was rendered by the competent court then it had a binding force on subsequent litigation because it was in the facts of this case a judgment in rem unless upset by the higher court. It was not done because no appeal was filed in the Supreme Court by the writ petitioner against the order dated 27.6.2011 passed in writ petition and nor against the review order dated 30.6.2013 passed in review petition. 11. Under these circumstances and in this view of the matter, the writ court was justified in dismissing the appellant's writ petition by simply placing reliance on the earlier decision rendered by the division bench on this very issue. We agree to this reasoning, which in our opinion is just and legal calling no interference. 12. In the light of foregoing discussion, the appeal is found to be devoid of any merit. It is accordingly dismissed in limine. 13. No cost.