JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri R.K. Manikanta Singh, petitioner-in-person and Shri Kh. Athouba, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. By the instant writ petition, the petitioner has questioned and challenged the validity and correctness of the impugned Corrigendum dated 16-10-2001 issued by the State Government correcting his date of birth as “01-03-1944” in place of “01-12-1949”. 3. According to the petitioner, he joined the service as Section Officer Grade-I on 16-05-1968 and at the time of joining his service, he declared his date of birth as 01-12-1949 by producing his High School Certificate. On 23-05-1968, the respondent No. 2 also joined the service as Section Officer Grade-I and thus, the petitioner was senior to the respondent No. 2. In a gradation list prepared by the State Government when some posts of Assistant Engineer fell vacant, his date of birth was shown as 01-03-1944. Accordingly, he submitted a representation raising objection thereto and the State Government, after due consideration, published a final seniority list showing his date of birth as 01-12-1949 and this position in respect of his date of birth remained unchanged in the seniority lists for the posts of Superintending Engineer and the Addl. Chief Engineer. 3.1 When the respondent No. 2 was appointed as Superintending Engineer superseding the petitioner, he filed a writ petition being C.R. No. 265 of 1991 which was disposed of on 10-07-1991 with the direction that his representation be considered by the respondents therein. At a later point of time, both of them were appointed as Additional Chief Engineer and sometime in the year 2000, the respondent No. 2 became the Secretary, IFC, Government of Manipur. After his appointment as the Secretary (IFC), the respondent No. 2 addressed various letters to the petitioner requesting him to submit his Matriculation Certificate for the purpose of verification of his date of birth. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 issued the impugned Corrigendum dated 16-10-2001 correcting the date of birth of the petitioner as 01-03-1944 instead of 01-12-1949 probably for the reason that the petitioner had failed to produce any document to prove his date of birth as 01-12-1949 and on the strength of his date of birth as 01-03-1944, the petitioner, on attaining the age of superannuation, was allowed to retire w.e.f. 28-02-2002. 4. 4. The writ petition is contested by the State Government by filing an affidavit-in-opposition wherein it is stated that while joining his service and as per the Service Book maintained in the Department, his date of birth was recorded as 01-03-1944 but taking advantage of the inadvertent mistake occurred in the Seniority List, the petitioner attempted to make out a case in his favour. The petitioner had already approached the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench by way of two writ petitions being W.P. (C) No. 271 of 2002 and W.P. (C) No. 17 of 2003 challenging the order of his retirement and the impugned Corrigendum dated 16-10-2001 which were disposed of by a common judgment and order dated 06-02-2004 dismissing the same with costs. An appeal being W.A. No. 32 of 2004 preferred against the said judgment and order dated 06-02-2004 was also dismissed and in the same manner, a petition for Special Leave Petition filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was also dismissed. Even after the said writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 17 of 2003 having been rejected by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the same purpose and for the same relief by abusing the process of law and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as barred by the principle of res judicata. 5. On perusal of the judgment and order dated 06-02-2004 passed by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench in the said two writ petitions and in particular, para one thereof, it is seen that the Corrigendum dated 16-10-2001 which is being impugned herein had already been challenged by the petitioner by way of the writ petition being W.P. (C) 17 of 2003. Since the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 17 of 2003 had already been dismissed by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench, the present writ petition is not maintainable as barred by res judicata and is accordingly liable to be dismissed. The principle of res judicata is based on the need of giving a finality to judicial decisions. In Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation Vs. The principle of res judicata is based on the need of giving a finality to judicial decisions. In Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation Vs. Balwant Singh, reported in 1993 Supp (1) SCC 552 wherein the respondent made a belated claim after the lapse of a period of about two years after the judgment became final, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the High Court, in the circumstances, was not justified in entertaining the claim and allowing the same. Referring to this decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ishwar Dutt Vs. land Acquisition Collector, reported in (2005) 7 SCC 190 observed “It is trite that the principle of re judicata is also applicable to the writ proceedings.” 6. In view of the above, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.