JUDGMENT : (Arup Kumar Goswami, J.) 1. Heard Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for respondent No. 1. 2. This writ petition is filed by employees of the Chhattisgarh State Renewable Energy Development Agency (CREDA) holding the post of Sub-Engineer with the following prayers: “A. To direct Respondent CREDA as well to Respondent No.1/Department of Energy to produce record/documents concerning the present cause before this Hon’ble Court; and B. To quash/set aside the order dated 22.03.2012, issued by the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3/CREDA, to the extent the same has effected amendment to the CREDA Employees/ Officers (Recruitment, Conditions of Service, Classification & Appeal) Rules, 2004 in relation to the eligibility criterion for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer from the post of Sub-Engineer and has provided that only such Sub-Engineers shall be entitled for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers who have a degree in engineering; and C. To ward the cost of present litigation to Petitioners; and/ or D. Any other relief(s) in favour of Petitioners as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of case.” 3. In paragraph 6 of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioners had previously filed a writ petition, being Writ Petition (S) No. 1826 of 2022 (Tulsiram Dhruv & Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), which was withdrawn. 4. The order dated 31.03.2022, by which the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, reads as follows: “1. At the outset, Shri Ansari seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition. 2. Prayer allowed. 3. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.” 5. By an order dated 14.02.2023, this case was directed to be listed alongwith the records of the Writ Petition (S) No. 1826 of 2022 and accordingly, records of Writ Petition (S) No. 1826 of 2022 has been tagged. 6. In Writ Petition (S) No. 1826 of 2022, the following prayers were made: “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioners and after its perusal allow this petition. 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly further be pleased to quash the impugned amendment order dated 22.03.2012 (Ann.P/3) so far it relates about amendment in promotion of Sub Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer. 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly further be pleased to quash the impugned amendment order dated 22.03.2012 (Ann.P/3) so far it relates about amendment in promotion of Sub Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer. 10.3 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the representation of petitioners (Ann.P-4) in accordance with the Service Rules, 2004. 10.4 Any other relief or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case be also granted to the petitioners.” 7. A perusal of the prayers made in the both the petitions would go to show that, essentially, almost identical prayers are made in both the petitions. 8. It is also to be borne in mind that the Writ Petition (S) No. 1826 of 2022 was withdrawn without seeking any liberty to file a fresh petition. 9. Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, CPC) is on the subject of “Withdrawal and Adjustment of Suits”. The principle underlying Rule 1 of Order XXIII of the CPC is that when a plaintiff once institutes a suit in a Court and thereby avails of a remedy given to him under law, he cannot be permitted to institute a fresh suit in respect of the same subject matter again after abandoning the earlier suit or by withdrawing it without the permission of the Court to file a fresh suit. 10. The question as to whether it would or would not advance the cause of justice if the principle underlying Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC was adopted in respect of writ petitions filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India was considered in the case of Sarguja Transport Service vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P., Gwalior & Others, reported in (1987) 1 SCC 5 . 11. In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the principle underlying Rule 1 of Order XXIII of the CPC should be extended in the interest of administration of justice to cases of withdrawal of writ petition also, not on the ground of res judicata, but on the ground of public policy. 11. In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the principle underlying Rule 1 of Order XXIII of the CPC should be extended in the interest of administration of justice to cases of withdrawal of writ petition also, not on the ground of res judicata, but on the ground of public policy. However, it was also laid down that while the withdrawal of a writ petition filed in a High Court without permission to file a fresh writ petition may not bar other remedies like a suit or writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, since such withdrawal does not amount to res judicata, the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be deemed to have been abandoned by the petitioner in respect of the cause of action relied on in the writ petition when he withdraws it without such permission. 12. In view of the above exposition of law as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarguja Transport (supra), this writ petition is not maintainable, the petitioners having earlier withdrawn Writ Petition (S) No. 1826 of 2022 without liberty to file a fresh petition. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.