***

AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J. (ORAL) –

By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

“i. That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued and the order dated 19.12.2024 (Annexure P-12) and letter dated Nil March 2025 (Annexure P-18) issued by respondent No.2 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

ii. That the selection of the respondent No.6 to the post of Sanitary Supervisor in Municipal Corporation Dharamshala may kindly be quashed and set aside.

iii. That the respondent No.2 may kindly be directed to select the present petitioner to the post of Sanitary Supervisor having Secured more marks than respondent No.6 and respondent No.3 may kindly be directed to given appointment to the petitioner to the above mentioned post.

iv. The respondents No.4 and 5 may kindly be directed to bring on the record the relevant record to the effect whether the National Trade Certificate in the trade of Health Sanitary Inspector is equivalent to Diploma in Sanitary Health Inspector or not in the light of office memorandum dated 22.10.2007.

v. That the respondents may kindly be directed to make an amendment/change in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules to the post of Health Sanitary Supervisor to the effect that the National Trade Certificate obtained in the Trade of Health Sanitary Inspector is also equivalent to Diploma in Health Sanitary Inspector.”

2. When the matter was listed on 29.05.2026, the following order was passed:-

“When this case was taken up for consideration, learned Counsel for respondent No. 6 has pointed out that the petitioner earlier also has approached this Court by way of CWP No. 115 of 2025, titled as Thakur Pradeep Kumar vs. H.P. Rajya Chayan Aayog, Hamirpur and others and said petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 03.01.2025,

without seeking any liberty to file a fresh petition on the same and subsequent causes.

Confronted with this contention of learned Counsel for respondent No.6, learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to para-20 of the writ petition and submitted that this fact stands disclosed in the petition.

This Court is of the considered view that when earlier petition of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by the Court and no liberty was granted to the petitioner to agitate the cause afresh, as no prayer in this regard was made by learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner, the subsequent petition on the same cause is barred by law, more so, in the light of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sarguja Transport Service vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior and others, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 88.

Faced with this situation, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be granted some time to have instructions.

List on 01.06.2026.”

3. Though, learned Counsel for the petitioner made an attempt to submit that the petition was maintainable, however, it could not be disputed that the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner on the same cause and for the same reliefs was withdrawn without liberty from the Court to file a fresh petition on the same cause.

4. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sarguja Transport Service Versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior and others, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 88, has been pleased to hold that it is common knowledge that very often after a writ petition is heard for some time when the petitioner or his counsel finds that the Court is not likely to pass an order admitting the petition, request is made by the petitioner or by his counsel, to permit the petitioner to withdraw from the writ petition without seeking permission to institute a fresh writ petition. A Court which is unwilling to admit the petition would not ordinarily grant liberty to file a fresh petition while it may just agree to permit the withdrawal of the petition. Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that it is plain that when once a writ petition filed in a High Court is withdrawn by the petitioner himself he is precluded from filing an appeal against the order passed in the writ petition because he cannot be considered as a party aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court. Hon’ble Supreme Court further held 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 a 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.

5. Thus, it is evident from the said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that once a writ petition is withdrawn without liberty from the Court to file a fresh on the same cause, then a subsequent writ on the same cause is not maintainable. As in the present case, the earlier writ filed by the petitioner was withdrawn in terms of order dated 03.01.2025 and no liberty was either sought or granted by the Court permitting the petitioner to file a fresh petition on the same cause, this petition is dismissed being hit by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly.

Petition dismissed.

********