Judgment This Mandamus Appeal is directed against the judgment and/or order passed by Learned Single Judge of this Court on 16th January, 2014 in W.P. No.28583 (W) of 2013 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by holding that the writ petition is barred by the principle of constructive res judicata. The legality and/or correctness of the said judgment of the Learned Single Judge has been challenged in this appeal by the appellant/writ petitioner. Let us now examine the merit of the instant appeal in the facts of the instant case. The writ petitioner was engaged as a part-time sweeper at Murshidabad under the erstwhile West Bengal State Electricity Board, Murshidabad now renamed as West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. in the year 1989 and since then he has been continuously rendering his service as sramik in the said establishment. He claims regularisation of his service. Foundation of his claim for regularisation of his service rests on two folds grounds;- (1) Circular dated 2nd August, 1979 and (2) unfair labour practice engineered by the employer by employing temporary staff for doing work of perennial nature in its establishment. In course of hearing of this appeal, Mr. Ghosh, Learned advocate appearing for the appellant in his usual fairness submits that the Government Circular dated 2nd August, 1979 is not applicable in the present case and as such, the appellant’s prayer for regularisation of his service cannot be allowed on the basis of the said circular. Thus, in course of hearing of this appeal, he practically abandoned the claim for regularisation of the appellant’s service on the basis of the said circular dated 2nd August, 1979. We thus, do not find any necessity of discussing the effect of the said circular dated 2nd August, 1979 and/or the justifiability petitioner’s claim for regularisation of his service on the basis of the said circular. Let us now concentrate on the other plea of unfair labour practice which is the other limb of his claim for regularisation of his service. The Learned Trial Judge indicated in the impugned order that the present writ petition out of which this appeal has arisen, is the fourth round of litigation before this Court. The first round of litigation started with the filing of the first writ petition by the appellant/petitioner in the year 1992. The Learned Trial Judge indicated in the impugned order that the present writ petition out of which this appeal has arisen, is the fourth round of litigation before this Court. The first round of litigation started with the filing of the first writ petition by the appellant/petitioner in the year 1992. The said writ petition being C.O. No. 9945(W) of 1992 was disposed of by a Learned Single Judge of this Court on 18th January, 2001 by directing the authorities to consider the petitioner’s candidature in the vacancy as and when the same would arise, after giving age relaxation. We have examined the pleadings of the first writ petition and the relief claimed by the petitioner therein. In the said writ petition the petitioner claimed regularisation of his service. The relief, which was granted by the Learned Single Judge of this Court in the said writ petition, clearly indicates that the relief which was claimed by the petitioner by way of regularisation of service, was not allowed by the Learned Trial Judge. The Learned Trial Judge simply directed the authorities to consider the petitioner’s candidature in the vacancy as and when the same would arise, after giving age relaxation. The order which was passed in the said writ petition clearly indicates that the right of participation of the petitioner in the selection process for any suitable post as and when vacancy will arise therein, by giving age relaxation to the petitioner, was recognised by this Court. The petitioner accepted the said order. He did not prefer any appeal against the said order though the relief, which he claimed for regularisation of his service, was not allowed in the said writ petition. The said order thus, attained its finality. In fact, the petitioner filed a subsequent writ petition being AST No. 1638 of 2006 for implementation of the order passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court on 18th January, 2001 in C.O. No. 9945 (W) of 1992. The said writ petition was also disposed of by another Learned Single Judge of this Court by directing the respondent authorities to act in terms of the order passed in the earlier writ petition at the time of holding interview for regularisation of the petitioner as a sramik. The said writ petition was also disposed of by another Learned Single Judge of this Court by directing the respondent authorities to act in terms of the order passed in the earlier writ petition at the time of holding interview for regularisation of the petitioner as a sramik. The said order also indicates that his prayer for regularisation of his service which he was so long rendering in the said establishment, was not allowed. However, he was satisfied with the order passed in the second writ petition. He did not prefer any appeal. Subsequently, he filed a contempt application as the order passed on 18th January, 2001 in the first writ petition was not complied with by the concerned authority. The contempt application was disposed of on 1st March, 2013 by directing the authority to allow the petitioner to participate in the recruitment process for a post (Technical Support Hand) for which advertisement was issued in the Newspaper. Admittedly, the appellant/petitioner was allowed to participate in the recruitment process but ultimately he was not found suitable for such appointment, as he could not emerge successful in the physical ability test. By submitting himself to the selection process for the said post viz. Technical Support Hand, the appellant/petitioner virtually abandoned his initial claim for regularisation of his service which he has been rendering in the said establishment till now. In the present writ petition, the petitioner claimed regularisation of his service on a plea that the employer has adopted unfair labour practice by employing the petitioner for doing perennial work without absorbing him permanently. The Learned Trial Judge held that the said plea which the petitioner now canvassed in support of his claim for regularisation of his service, was available to him at the time when he moved the first writ petition but since in spite of availability of the said ground, he did not urge the same while moving the said writ petition, he cannot raise the said plea for the first time while moving the fourth writ petition as the fourth writ petition is barred by the principle of constructive res judicata. We do not find any reason to come to any conclusion different from that as was arrived at by the Learned Trial Judge in the facts of the instant case. We do not find any reason to come to any conclusion different from that as was arrived at by the Learned Trial Judge in the facts of the instant case. That apart when the identical relief on the selfsame cause of action was denied by the Learned Trial Judge in the first writ petition and when the petitioner accepted the said order, he cannot maintain successive writ petition for claiming identical relief which was denied to him in the earlier writ petitions. Before concluding, we want to mention here that the appellant/petitioner has failed to show that he was employed even on temporary basis against a sanctioned post. The appellant/petitioner has also failed to show that any sanctioned post of sweeper still remains vacant where his service can be regularized. Since the appellant failed to establish before us that he was even employed temporarily against any sanctioned post, his claim for regularisation of service cannot be allowed, particularly when no sanctioned post for the sweeper is available in the said establishment. This court thus, does not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal thus, stands dismissed.