JUDGMENT : VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Impugned in the present proceedings at the instance of Amit Chaurasiya and Shivam Singh are the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (in short ‘Tribunal’) dated 10.08.2022 passed in O.A. No. 714 of 2022 (Amit Chaurasiya v. Union of India and Others) and O.A. No. 715 of 2022 (Shivam Singh v. Union of India and Others) whereby the prayer made for undertaking the exercise of document verification and medical test and upon being successful, grant of appointment order was denied and also the order dated 27.03.2023 passed in O.A. No. 982 of 2022 (Shivam Singh and Another v. Union of India and Others) wherein the challenge raised to the order dated 06.09.2022 was declined. 2. The case of the original applicants before the Tribunal was that a notification was published by the Railway Recruitment Boards, Centralised Employment Notice (CEN) No. 02 of 2018 inviting online applications from eligible candidates for recruitment on various posts in Level 1 to 7th CPC Pay Matrix in various units of Indian Railways. The original applicants claim to have applied under OBC category for Group ‘D’ post. Admit card is stated to have been issued on 06.12.2018/04.12.2018. The original applicants further claim that they appeared in the Computer Based Test Examination and they were declared successful and thereafter admit cards issued to the original applicants to appear in physical efficiency test on 05.04.2019 which the original applicants claim to have cleared. It is the allegation of the original applicants that they were waiting for a written communication to be made for document verification and medical test but the applicants were not informed and they were totally unaware of the date on which they were to appear. The original applicants further claim to have preferred application/ representation on 25.06.2022 which remained unheeded. On gathering knowledge that first round of document verification and medical test was to be held on 16.08.2022 and they were invited to appear in the same, so the original applicant No. 1 preferred original application, O.A. No. 714 of 2022 (Amit Chaurasiya v. Union of India and Others) followed by the original application no. 2, O.A. No. 715 of 2022 (Shivam Singh v. Union of India and Others). The original applications came to be dismissed on 10.08.2022. 3. 2, O.A. No. 715 of 2022 (Shivam Singh v. Union of India and Others). The original applications came to be dismissed on 10.08.2022. 3. Thereafter on 29.8.2022, the original applicants claim to have represented before the respondents for according permission for medical examination and document verification whereupon on 06.09.2022, an order is stated to have been passed by the Chairman Railway Recruitment Cell North Central Railway, Allahabad denying the said request. 4. Assailing the said order, the original applicants preferred O.A. No. 982 of 2022 (Shivam Singh and Another v. Union of India and Others) seeking following reliefs: “(i) That this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash and set-aside the impugned order dated 06.09.2022 passed by Respondent No. 2 qua to the Applicants. (ii) That this Hon'ble Court further be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 2 to invite the Applicants for document/certificate verification and medical test, if applicants stands on merit to give appointments in pursuance of the advertisement dated 10.02.2018. (iii) That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to pass such other and/or further order as deem fit, proper and necessary in the circumstances of the case. (iv) award costs to the Applicants.” 5. The Tribunal on 03.11.2022 passed an interim order. Relevant extract thereof is quoted herein-under: “Taking into consideration the nature of the prayer for interim relief when there is specific version of the applicants that they did not receive proper information and due to this reason, they could not appear for document verification, thus, the Court is of the view that interim relief claimed in the matter is liable to be granted to the applicants as granting the IR at this stage will not result in hampering the selection process in any way whatsoever if result has not been already declared. Accordingly, the respondents are directed that two post of the category of the applicants be kept vacant till the next date of listing. Accordingly, IR is allowed.” 6. On being noticed, the Railways filed their reply to which a rejoinder affidavit also filed. 7. The Tribunal dismissed the original application on 27.03.2023. 8. Questioning the said orders, the original applicants have filed the present application seeking following reliefs: “(a) a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 10.08.2022 passed in O.A. No. 714 of 2022 (Amit Chaurasiya Vs. 7. The Tribunal dismissed the original application on 27.03.2023. 8. Questioning the said orders, the original applicants have filed the present application seeking following reliefs: “(a) a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 10.08.2022 passed in O.A. No. 714 of 2022 (Amit Chaurasiya Vs. Union of India and Others) and passed in O.A. No. 715 of 2022 (Shivam Singh Vs. Union of India and Others) by Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Allahabad (Annexure Nos. 11 & 12 to this writ petition). (b) a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 27.03.2023 passed in O.A. No. 982 of 2022 (Shivam Singh and Another Vs. Union of India and Others) passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench at Allahabad (Annexure No. 19 to this writ petition). (c) a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 06.09.2022 passed by Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board Cell, North Central Railway, Allahabad with regard to petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 respectively (Annexure No. 13 & 14 to this writ petition). (d) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to undertake document verification and medical test of the petitioners and upon being declared successful may undertake follow up action for appointment on Group 'D' post in pursuance to advertisement dated 10.02.2018 within a period to be specified by this Hon'ble Court. (e) any other writ, order or direction, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case. (f) award cost of the writ petition throughout in favour of the petitioners.” 9. On 10.05.2023, this Court passed the interim order which reads as under: “Learned Counsel for the respondent is given four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks, thereafter. List on 10 July 2023. It is not being disputed by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties that by way of an interim order granted by the Tribunal, two Group-D posts was directed to be kept vacant. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to keep two Group-D posts vacant which shall abide by the outcome of the writ petition.” 10. It is not being disputed by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties that by way of an interim order granted by the Tribunal, two Group-D posts was directed to be kept vacant. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to keep two Group-D posts vacant which shall abide by the outcome of the writ petition.” 10. Learned counsels for the parties have made a joint statement that they do not propose to file any further affidavits, the writ petition be decided on the basis of the materials available on record. Accordingly, the writ petition is being decided at the admission stage. 11. Shri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the original applicants has sought to argue that the judgment and orders of the Tribunal cannot be sustained even for a single moment as the Tribunal has misdirected itself and misconstrued the controversy while adopting a wrong approach. Elaborating the said submission, it is submitted that the original applicants had applied in pursuance of the recruitment notification dated 10.02.2018 for recruitment on the Group ‘D’ post and after being issued the admit card, the original applicants cleared the computer based test exam and thereafter appeared in the physical efficiency test in which they were also declared successful, however, the original applicants were not communicated either in oral or writing the date on which they were to be present for medical examination and document verification. 12. Submission is that they have been marked absent despite the fact that fault was at the end of the Railways as they have not made any effort for communicating the date on which the original applicants were to appear for document verification and medical examination. 12. Submission is that they have been marked absent despite the fact that fault was at the end of the Railways as they have not made any effort for communicating the date on which the original applicants were to appear for document verification and medical examination. It is also submitted that the original applicants at the first instance represented the matters before the Railways and thereafter preferred O.A. No. 714 of 2022 (Amit Chaurasiya v. Union of India and Others) and O.A. No. 715 of 2022 (Shivam Singh v. Union of India and Others) which came to be decided on 10.08.2022, whereupon the original applicants again represented their claim on 29.08.2022 before the Railways which came to be rejected on 06.09.2022 which was subject matter of challenge in O.A. No. 982 of 2022 (Shivam Singh and Another v. Union of India and Others) which has also been rejected without going into the legality of the claim of the original applicants while holding that the subsequent proceedings in Original Application No. 982 of 2022 was not maintainable. 13. Argument is that once a fresh cause of action arose, post passing of the order rejecting the claim of the original applicants on 06.09.2022 then obviously the O.A. No. 982 of 2022 (Shivam Singh and Another v. Union of India and Others) was maintainable and, thus, the Tribunal has erred in law in dismissing the original application without going into the merits of the matter. While citing the case of Sri Rakesh Saini who was also not called for document verification and medical examination on the same grounds vis-a-vis the original applicants, he challenged the action of the Railways in O.A. No. 330/00703 of 2022 (Rakesh Saini v. Union of India and Others) which came to be dismissed, against which Writ-A No. 20065 of 2022 (Rakesh Saini v. Union of India and Others) was preferred which came to be allowed on 13.12.2022 requiring the Railways to afford an opportunity to Shri Rakesh Saini to appear for document verification and medical test. It is, thus, contended that once the original applicants’ case are similar to the case of Rakesh Saini (supra) then they are entitled to be meted with the same treatment while according the benefits and the hyper technicality will not come in his way. 14. It is, thus, contended that once the original applicants’ case are similar to the case of Rakesh Saini (supra) then they are entitled to be meted with the same treatment while according the benefits and the hyper technicality will not come in his way. 14. Additionally, it has been argued that the Railways themselves issued notice on 18.07.2023 and 23.07.2023 while granting another opportunity for document verification and medical examination till 04.09.2023, the case of the original applicants stand covered, for according one additional opportunity. It is thus prayed that the orders of the Tribunal be set aside. The relief be granted in toto. 15. Countering the submission of learned counsel for the original applicants, Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for Railways has submitted that the orders of the Tribunal need no interference in the present proceedings as the Tribunal has meticulously analysed the facts of the case and dealt with each and every contention of the parties. Submission is that once in the proceedings in O.A. No. 714 of 2022 (Amit Chaurasiya v. Union of India and Others) and O.A. No. 715 of 2022 (Shivam Singh v. Union of India and Others) at the instance of the original applicants, a categorical finding stood recorded that the original applications were given due information to appear on the date fixed for medical examination and document verification, the original applicants did not appear and the said findings remained unassailable then it was not open for the original applicants to have preferred representation/request letters on 29.08.2022 for grant of further opportunity to appear for document verification and medical test. It is being argued that mere disposal of the representation dated 29.08.2022, on 06.09.2022 would not create a fresh cause of action for filling the O.A. No. 982 of 2022, particularly, when there happens to be a specific finding recorded against the original applicants. 16. It is being argued that mere disposal of the representation dated 29.08.2022, on 06.09.2022 would not create a fresh cause of action for filling the O.A. No. 982 of 2022, particularly, when there happens to be a specific finding recorded against the original applicants. 16. As regards, the judgment in the case of Rakesh Saini (supra), it has been sought to be argued that post dismissal of the original application, Sri Rakesh Saini preferred writ petition and an order was passed in his favour but in the case in hand, there happens to be an order of the Tribunal returning findings against the original applicants which was not put to challenge before the competent forum but after passing of the order in the subsequent proceedings, O.A. No. 982 of 2022 (Shivam Singh and Another v. Union of India and Others), the same is being challenged which is not permissible in the eyes of law. 17. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 18. The facts are not in issue. It is not in dispute that a notification came to be issued by the Railways on 10.02.2018 for inviting online applications for recruitment of various post in Level 1 to 7th CPC Pay Matrix. It is also not in dispute that the original applicants applied under OBC category and they have issued admit cards, they cleared the computer based test examination and also physical efficiency test. The dispute arose when according to the original applicants, they were not informed either in writing or telephonically to appear on the date fixed for document verification and medical examination and they were marked absent. 19. Record reveals that the original applicants preferred an application/representation on 25.06.2022 before the Railways when the Railways uploaded a notice in the official website for first round of medical examination and document verification to be held on 26.02.2022 but original applicants were not called. Thereafter original applicants preferred O.A. No. 714 of 2022 and O.A. No. 715 of 2022, which came to be dismissed on 10.08.2022 while observing as under: “Thus the present applicant was well aware of Instructions of the RRB in the notification and was also intimated on his mobile number that his document verification and medical examination would be conducted from 17 to 23rd May 2022. Thereafter another opportunity was provided again on 24th May 2022 to those candidates who for some reasons could not appear from 17th to 23rd May, 2022. But the applicant on his own failed to appear for document verification and medical test on those two opportunities. Therefore, at this stage the respondents cannot provide any further opportunity to the applicant for this purpose and from 16th August 2022 only those candidates have been directed to appear for document verification and medical test who were next below in the list of candidates qualified in the written test and PET after those given the opportunity twice from 17th to 23rd May, 2022 and then again on 24th, May, 2022. Since the applicant had already been provided two opportunities for this purpose and he himself failed to avail of them, he cannot be given any further opportunity for the same purpose. Therefore, this OA has no merit and it should be dismissed. 4. We have carefully considered submissions of both the counsels and on such consideration we are of opinion that the applicant was well aware of relevant instructions of the RRB related to the recruitment process. Dates for Information of candidates for their document verification and medical examination first from 17th to 23rd May, 2022 and thereafter again on 24.05.2022 were notified for Information of candidates in advance by the RRB when the first list of candidates qualified in written test and PET was notified. The applicant was also intimated about it on his mobile number. But on his own volition, he failed to avail of those two opportunities. The applicant's counsel has also not disclosed the fact that the first opportunity was provided to the applicant from 17 to 23, May, 2022, and another on 24.05.2022 if he had failed to avail of the first opportunity due to some strong reason. He has submitted as if only one opportunity was given to the applicant on 24.05.2022. Thereafter also, if he had some genuine reason, the applicant did not submit any representation to the respondents for considering him for any further opportunity. 5. In view of the facts mentioned in preceding paragraph, we find merit in submissions of the respondents' counsel. He has submitted as if only one opportunity was given to the applicant on 24.05.2022. Thereafter also, if he had some genuine reason, the applicant did not submit any representation to the respondents for considering him for any further opportunity. 5. In view of the facts mentioned in preceding paragraph, we find merit in submissions of the respondents' counsel. After having provided two opportunities to the applicant for his document verification and medical examination, when he himself failed to avail of them, the respondents cannot be asked to keep providing further repeated opportunities to the negligent applicant. The respondents have already provided adequate opportunity to him but he failed to avail of them. Thereafter also, he did not submit any representation to them in this regard. Therefore, we find no merit in submissions of the applicant's counsel and in this OA. Hence this OA is disposed of. No costs.” 20. The original applicants post dismissal of the OAs preferred representation/request letter on 29.08.2022 before the Railways which in turn came to rejected on 06.09.2022 which was subject matter of challenge in O.A. No. 982 of 2022 which came to be dismissed on 27.03.2023. After dismissal of the said OAs, O.A. No. 982 of 2022, the original applicants have filed the present writ petition wherein the order dated 10.08.2022 passed in O.A. No. 714 of 2022 (Amit Chaurasiya v. Union of India and Others) and O.A. No. 715 of 2022 (Shivam Singh v. Union of India and Others) and the order dated 27.03.2023 passed in O.A. No. 982 of 2022 has been challenged. 21. In order to determine whether the, O.A. No. 982 of 2022 is maintainable or not, the nature of the relief in the earlier spell of litigation is to be seen. Evidently, the relief claimed in O.A. No. 714 of 2022 (Amit Chaurasiya v. Union of India and Others) and O.A. No. 715 of 2022 (Shivam Singh v. Union of India and Others) goes to show that the relief sought therein was for a direction to the Railways to accord opportunity and to permit the original applicants to appear for document verification and medical test. Pertinently, the said original applications came to be dismissed on 10.08.2022. The said orders was not put to challenge by the original applicants at the appropriate time and stage and they attained finality. 22. Pertinently, the said original applications came to be dismissed on 10.08.2022. The said orders was not put to challenge by the original applicants at the appropriate time and stage and they attained finality. 22. Interestingly, the order dated 10.08.2022 passed in O.A. No. 714 of 2022 (Amit Chaurasiya v. Union of India and Others) and O.A. No. 715 of 2022 (Shivam Singh v. Union of India and Others) records a categorical finding against the original applicants that they are not entitled for the relief for being called for document verification and medical examination as they were accorded multiple opportunities to appear for the same but did not appear. The orders do not grant liberty to the original applicants to further represent their claim/cause before the Railways. However, the original applicants preferred representation/ request letter on 29.08.2022 for allowing them to appear in the document verification and medical examination. On the said representation an order seems to have been passed on 06.09.2022 negating their request which again came to be challenged in O.A. No. 982 of 2022. In the wake of intervening facts, certainly, the subsequent proceedings, while filing O.A. No. 982 of 2022 was not maintainable as the findings recorded in the O.A. No. 714 of 2022 (Amit Chaurasiya v. Union of India and Others) and O.A. No. 715 of 2022 (Shivam Singh v. Union of India and Others) would act as res judicata between the parties. 23. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Praveen Kumar and Others, 2003 (6) AWC 5586 was confronted with a situation wherein a party to the litigation sought reopening of an issue which stood finally concluded by a judicial decision, following was observed: “9........So far as the issue of res judicata is concerned. It is a doctrine of law based on equity and public policy that a party may not be permitted to harass the other party and waste Court’s time by re-agitating the same issue. 18........Thus, in view of the above, whatever may be the merits and correctness of the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal earlier in its judgment and order dated 02.04.2002, it was not open to the petitioner Union of India to reopen the issue sitting as an appellate authority over and above the Tribunal.” 24. 18........Thus, in view of the above, whatever may be the merits and correctness of the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal earlier in its judgment and order dated 02.04.2002, it was not open to the petitioner Union of India to reopen the issue sitting as an appellate authority over and above the Tribunal.” 24. Nonetheless, now in order to wriggle out from the position which has been created by the original applicants themselves while not assailing the order dated 10.08.2022 passed in O.A. No. 714 of 2022 (Amit Chaurasiya v. Union of India and Others) and O.A. No. 715 of 2022 (Shivam Singh v. Union of India and Others) before the competent forum at the appropriate stage, now the same is being put to challenge in the present proceedings which cannot be permitted. 25. Even otherwise, the representation dated 29.08.2022 preferred by the original applicants to accord another opportunity to appear for document verification and medical examination was itself not maintainable as the cause of action stood extinguished once the O.A. No. 714 of 2022 (Amit Chaurasiya v. Union of India and Others) and O.A. No. 715 of 2022 (Shivam Singh v. Union of India and Others) stood rejected. Moreover passing of any order on the said representation is of no relevance and would not create any cause of action. 26. As regards, the reliance placed upon the judgment in the case of Rakesh Saini (supra) is concerned, the same is clearly distinguishable and would not apply in the case of original applicant, particularly, when in the said case, after a dismissal of the original application, the original applicant-Sri Rakesh Saini preferred writ petition, which came to be allowed in his favour. However, in the present case, the original applicants did not challenge the order dated 10.08.2022 dismissing the original application Nos. 714 of 2022 and 715 of 2022, however, post passing of an order on 06.09.2022 rejecting their representation dated 29.08.2022 (not maintainable), against the said order, an O.A. came to be filed which got dismissed is sought to be challenged which by all probabilities had attained finality and mere decision of the representation would not infuse life upon the claim of the original applicants which stood determined against them. With regard to the circulars dated 18.07.2023 and 23.07.2023 according another opportunity for the candidates to appear for document verification and medical examination, the said circulars would not of any help to the original applicants in the wake of the finding recorded against the original applicants that due to their fault, they did not appear for document verification and medical examination. 27. Accordingly, we are on the firm opinion that the original applicants have miserably failed to show any manifest illegality committed by the Tribunal while passing the orders impugned so as to warrant interference in the present proceeding. 28. Resultantly, the writ petition stands dismissed.