The principle of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that a plaintiff who abandons or withdraws a suit without permission to file a fresh suit shall be precluded from instituting any fresh suit in respect of such subject matter, is also applicable in writ proceedings by way of public policy.

( 1 ) MR Yatindra Singh, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 assisted by Mr K. R. Singh, learned Standing Counsel, raises a preliminary objection as to maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that petitioners Writ Petition No. 42253 of 1993 filed on the same cause of action for the same relief having been dismissed as withdrawn, the petitioner is not entitled to maintain a second writ petition Mr S. P. Gupta, however, had opposed the said contention and pointed out that earlier writ petition having been dismissed as withdrawn at that stage, the same will not affect maintainability of this writ petition.

( 2 ) BOTH the learned Counsel had, however, addressed the Court on merits of the case with regard to fixation of seniority between the petitioner, a direct recruit alleging to be of the same year above the regularised candidates. Since a preliminary objection has been mised, before entering into merits of the case, let us examine the merit of the preliminary objection.

( 3 ) FOR the purpose of examining preliminary objection, it would be necessary to refer to the facts as would be relevant for such purpose. In as much as without reference to the facts, it is not possible to decide the preliminary objection in the present case. As such brief facts as are necessary for the present purpose, are being summarised as hereinafter.

( 4 ) A seniority list dated 1-9-1988 of the Deputy Jailors was issued in which the petitioners name was placed below serial No. 231. The petitioner alleges that pursuant to an advertisement issued in February 1979, the petitioner was selected by the U. P. Public Service Commission sometimes in April 1981 and was appointed as Assistant Jailor in October 1981, whereas the persons figuring at serial No. 153 to 231 of the said seniority list, were regularised under the provisions of U. P. Regularisation of Adhoc Appointments (on posts within the purview of the Public service Commission) Rules, 1979. By reason of rule, such persons are to be placed below the persons appointed in accordance with the relevant Service Rules. The petitioner having been recruited according to the service rules namely U. P. Jail Executive Subordinate (Non-gazetted)Service Rules, 1980, is eligible to be placed above the aforesaid regularised candidates by reason of Rule 5 read with explanation thereof and U. P. Government Servant Senority Rules, 1991 which provides in the second proviso that the persons appointed on the result of subsequent selection shall be junior to the persons appointed on the result of previous selection and that where same year separate selections for regular and emergency recruitments are made, the selection for regular recruitment shall be deemed to be the previous selection. Relying on the second proviso read with explanation to Rule 5 of the 1991 Rules, the petitioner claims that the persons at serial No. 153 to 231 being regularised candidates cannot be placed above the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said seniority list dated 1- 9-88, the petitioner had made a representation on 4-1-1992. The said representation was rejected by an order dated 11th August, 1992. Thereafter, the petitioner made another representation which was rejected by an order dated 29-4- 1993. Thereupon, the petitioner had moved writ petition No. 42253 of 1993. The said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn at that stage by an order dated 27- 10-93. The petitioner had presented this writ petition on 28th February, 1994.

( 5 ) ON the question of maintainability, Mr. Yatindra Singh, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has raised two objections. First one is the question of maintainability of a second writ petition and the second one is on account of suppression of material facts as well as deliberate mis-statement amounting to purgery.

( 6 ) ALLAHABAD High Court Rules in Chapter XXII, Rules 7 provides that "where an application has been rejected, it shall not be competent for the