Constructive res judicata (Explanation 4 to S. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure) bars parties from raising issues in subsequent litigations that could and ought to have been raised in prior proceedings, aimed at ensuring finality, avoiding multiplicity of proceedings, and preventing the abuse of legal processes.

JUDGMENT & ORDER

(CAV)

(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)

The appellant has questioned the judgment dated 31.10.2025, passed by a learned Single Judge in WP(C) Nos. 5584 and 4843 of 2023, preferred by the respondent No. 6 herein, whereby the writ petitions referred to above were disposed off by remanding the matter to the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of School Education, to re-examine the marks allotted to the appellant and the respondent No. 6 and to take a decision in that regard within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the afore noted judgment, with a specific direction that the Secretary shall give to the appellant and the respondent No. 6 the opportunity of personal hearing before passing the order and, after the decision is arrived at by revisiting the marks allotted to the parties inter se, the consequential action should also follow.

We have heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. T. Kashyap, learned Advocate for the appellant; Ms. R. Barua, learned Standing Counsel, Education (Secondary) Department for respondent Nos.1 to 4; Mr. S.K. Das, learned Advocate for respondent No.5 and Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. M. Nirola and Mr. J. Hatimura, learned Advocates for respondent No.6.

Vide order dated 26.03.2026, passed in this appeal, this Court set out the sequence of events leading to the filing of the above-referred two writ petitions by the respondent No. 6 in the background of the long running dispute between the parties for the post of Principal at Bamundongra Higher Secondary School, Barpeta, Assam.

The relevant part of our order dated 26.03.2026 is being reproduced herein-below for avoiding any prolixity as also for the sake of completeness.

“We have heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. T. Kashyap, learned Advocate for the appellant; Ms. R. Barua, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department for respondent Nos.1 to 4; Mr. S.K. Das, learned Advocate for respondent No.5 and Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. J. Hatimura, learned Advocate for respondent No.6.

This is a long-running battle between the appellant and the respondent No.6 for the post of Principal at Bamundongra Higher Secondary School, Barpeta, Assam.

The sequence of events are as hereunder:

On 30.05.2019, an advertisement was issued by the competent authority for section for the post of Principal of Bamundongra Higher Secondary School in the district of Barpeta.

The School Selection Committee had prepared a panel of candidates wherein the appellant was placed at Serial No.1 whereas respondent No.6 was placed at Serial No.2 in the merit list. The list of persons to be considered was then placed before the State Selection Board, which, in turn, referred the list to the Government for its approval.

It may be noted herein that no selection had been made till that time. However, respondent No.6, on being placed second in the merit list, filed a representation before the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, making a request to re-examine the select list before the list was acted upon by the authorities.

The re-examination of the list was done by Member Secretary, State Selection Board.

The State Selection Board, after critically examining the list, approved of it, which paved the way for the appellant to be appointed ultimately.

The respondent No.6, thereafter, but before any final selection was made, preferred a writ petition [WP(C) No.7980/2019] mounting the challenge that the re-examination as directed was never carried out and the list which was already prepared, was forwarded for selection.

At that stage, a Be