Repeated adjudication of issues pertaining to similarly situated persons on the ground that there are new grounds for denying the relief is not permissible, as it would create two different sub-clauses in one class, which ultimately offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

ORDER :

A.V. Sesha Sai, J.

Since these two Letters Patent Appeals arise from a common order, and as the issues are the same, this Court deems it appropriate to hear and dispose of these cases by way of this common order.

2. Writ Appeal No.864 of 2021 arises from W.P.No.10253 of 2019 and W.A.No.873 of 2022 arises from W.P.No.10252 of 2019.

3. By way of the impugned common order, dated 08.10.2021, the learned single Judge dismissed the Writ Petitions. The said orders passed by the learned single Judge are under challenge in these Appeals, preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the unsuccessful writ petitioners.

4. Heard Sri P.Gangaiah Naidu, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri G.Elisha, learned counsel for the writ petitioners-appellants herein, and Sri K.V.Raghuveer, learned Government Pleader for Education, for the respondents, apart from perusing the entire material available on record.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants contends that the impugned common order passed by the learned single Judge is highly erroneous, contrary to law and is a result of non-consideration of the material available on record. It is further contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the reasons assigned by the learned single Judge in the impugned order are neither sustainable nor tenable in the eye of law; that the orders passed in similar Writ Petitions attained finality, as such, the learned single Judge grossly erred in permitting the respondents to canvass the issues which were already gone into in the earlier Writ Petitions filed by the similarly situated individuals.

6. On the contrary, Sri K.V.Raghuveer, learned Government Pleader for Education, strongly supporting the impugned orders, contends that there is no error nor there exists any infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the learned single Judge, as such, the said orders do not warrant any interference of this Court under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent; that the respondents filed counter-affidavit, raising a number of objections which disentitle the writ petitioners from claiming the relief sought in the Writ Petitions. It is further contended that the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ appellants that it would not be open for the respondents to deny the claim of the writ petitioners, having regard to the earlier orders, is neither sustainable nor tenable. In support of his contentions, learned Government Pleader places reliance on the following judgments:

1. (2009) 5 SCC 65

2. (2011) 3 SCC 436

7. In the above background, now the issues that emerge for consideration and adjudication are as infra:

1) Whether the order passed by the learned single Judge, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, is sustainable and tenable?

2) Whether the writ petitioners-appellants herein are entitled for any relief from this Court?

8. Appellants herein filed the aforementioned Writ Petitions, assailing the orders passed by the Commissioner and Director of Collegiate Education, dated 30.01.2015 and 20.11.2015, declining to appoint the writ petitioners-appellants herein as Lecturers in Mathematics and English against the aided vacancies. After receipt of the notices, respondents in the Writ Petitions contested the matters by filing counter-affidavits. Eventually, as stated supra, the Writ Petitions came to be dismissed by the learned single Judge vide the orders impugned in the present Writ Appeals.

9. The essence of the case of the appellants, as advocated by the learned Senior Counsel, is that the learned single Judge ought not to have permitted the respondent authorities to re-agitate all the issues which attained finality in a number of earlier Writ Petitions.

10. On the contrary, the sum and substance of the case of the respondents is that the issues, which were raised and discussed in the present Writ Petitions, were not at all raised and considered in the earlier Writ Petitions. In order to consider and adjudicate the issues raised in t