Pratap Kumar Ray, J - (1.) . - Heard the learned Advocate for the parties. In this writ application, the petitioner, being the son of a deceased teacher prayed for the following reliefs:- "(a) A writ and/or writs in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith act in accordance with law and give appointment to the petitioner in the post of Primary School teacher on compassionate ground within the concerned district; (b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents and its agents and successor-in-office to release payment order in connection with the death-cum-retirement others benefit of the deceased primary teacher forthwith to this widow mother; This writ application was affirmed on 16.4.2000 by the present petitioner wherein Advocate on Record was one Mr. Ashok Kumar Ganguly, a learned Advocate of this Court.
(2.) In the affidavit-in-opposition, the respondent primary School Council has taken the stand that since prayer (a) of the present writ petition was the subject matter of another writ application filed by the mother of the petitioner, being W.P. No. 9833 (W) of 2000 and an order dated 17.7.2000 was passed disposing of the said writ application by M.H.S. Ansari, J. directing to consider the relief of employment on compassionate ground on the basis of the application dated 9.5.95, if any such application in fact was already made for adjudcation, by certain period. With such contention, it is submitted by the learned Advocate for the respondent that the present writ is not maintainable. In the supplementary affidavit, it has been admitted after receipt of such affidavit in opposition, that the petitioner's mother moved the writ court earlier and order was passed on 17.7.2000 by M.H.S. Ansari, J. whereby and whereunder direction was given to decide the application dated 9.6.95, if any, in accordance with law so far as the grant of employment on compassionate ground to the present petitioner. In the supplementary affidavit at page 9, the present petitioner has annexed a decision made by the Chairman Ad-hoc Committee, District Primary School Council, Birbhum, wherefrom it is revealed that in terms of the order dated 17.7.2000 passed by M.H.S. Ansari, J. The writ petitioner therein in the said writ application was informed to the effect that there was no such application dated 9.6.95 regarding compassionate appointment of the son of the deceased teacher, as claimed by the widow of the deceased teacher in that writ application.
(3.) As per direction, the present petitioner herein has placed a copy of the writ application as was finally decided by this court earlier by M.H.S. Ansari, J. That writ application was affirmed by the mother of the present petitioner, wherein also Mr. Ashok Kumar Ganguly was the learned Advocate on record. For effective adjudication of the present writ application, some relevant paragraphs from the said writ application are required to be quoted. Paragraphs 5 and 7 are the relevant paragraphs which are now to be dealt with. Those paragraphs are as follows : "5. Your petitioner states that after the death of the husband of the petitioner your petitioner first time approached with the Chairman, Birbhum District Primary School Council for releasing family pension and gratutity payment on 9.6.1995. Your petitioner states that in the said letter your petitioner asked for releasing family pension, Gratuity payment and the salary or the last month he worked. Your petitioner further states that in the said letter she also made a request to the Chairman of the said Council to give appointment of her son Shri Ratan Kumar Sahu on compassionate ground. Copy of the said letter was also forwarded to the S.I. of Schools, Nalhati, Birbhum. 7. Your petitioner states that the husband of your petitioner died on 27.6.1994 and the son of your petitioner submitted a representation to the D.I. of Schools (SE) Birbhum on 26.7.1994 along with all necessary documents within one month from the date of death of his father. Your petitioner states that according to the Rule framed by the Education Department on that subject such representation can be made within 2 years from the date of death, but in the instant case the son of your petitioner submitted representation within a month and as such there is no scope of denial for appointment on compassionate ground and the authority concerned is bound to give appointment to the son of your petitioner." Hence, it appears that though in the writ application which was disposed of earlier filed by the mother of the present petitioner prayer for. identical relief of appointments of her son on compassionate ground was made, by referring and submitting the fact of filing of application praying for appointment on compassionate ground on 26.7.1994 in paragraph 7 of the application, but as it appears from the order dated 17.7.2000 of M.H.S. Ansari, J. that such fact was not pressed before that court for a decision by the Primary School Council regarding disposal of the application dated 26.7.1994 as filed. Further, it appears that in the earlier writ application the court directed to dispose of the application dated 9.6.95 filed by the mother of the petitioner regarding compassionate appointment of her son. It appears that the present writ application though was affirmed earlier that the writ application as has already been disposed of filed by the mother of the present petitioner, but in the writ application which was subsequently affirmed, being the writ application filed by the mother of the present petitioner, there was no whisper that already another writ application was pending in this court filed by the son of the deceased teacher praying for identical relief for appointment on compassionate ground. Hence, it appears prima facie that there was non-disclosure of material facts also in the writ application as was adjudicated by M.H.S. Ansari, . It is now a settled legal position that for identical relief with identical facts and cause of action, there is no scope for filing writ applications one after another by different parties. In the instant case, it appears that there was no enmity between the mother and the son and both are living in the joint mess and the mother herself filed writ application in this court for appointment of her son, which has been adjudicated earlier. It is a settled legal position that for public policy, there should not be successive writ applications on the self-same cause of action. Reliance in this connection may be placed to the judgment in the case of Sarbajya Transport Service v. S.T.A. Tribunal, reported in AIR 1987 SC 88, wherein the Apex Court held that filing of successive writ petitions is nothing but a bench hunting tractics. Reliance may be placed to the judgment in the case of Daria v. State of U.P., reported in AIR 1981 SC 1457, Upadhyay & Co. v. State of U.P., reported in (1999) 1 SCC 81, Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Development Authority, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 97. Since in the writ application filed by the mother of the present petitioner, the fact that the present petitioner, son of the deceased teacher, submitted a representation on 26.7.94, was already adjudicated by M.H.S. Ansari, J. by directing the Primary School Council to decide the application dated 9.6.95 if the same was filed, it is clear that either paragraph 7 was not placed for a decision before His Lordship M.H.S. Ansari, J. or the petitioner therein waived the decision of the application dated 26.7.94. Hence, it appears that on self-same pleadings, already a writ application has been adjudicated by this Court by not allowing adjudication of the application dated 26.7.94 filed by the son of the deceased teacher, and accordingly this writ application is not maintainable. This is directly hit by the doctrine of constructive res judicata. On the identical pleading, since already a decision has been reached by this court in the writ petition as was heard earlier this writ application though affirmed prior to the writ application, as has been disposed of, but it will be deemed as a bar in view of adjudication of the subsequent writ application filed by the mother of the present writ petitioner. Besides the point of res judicata, the doctrine of judicial discipline is squarely applicable in the instant case, which mandates that a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction will not touch or interfere any order as passed by another court with the same jurisdiction and for fairness of things, the parties should be directed to pray for necessary order before the earlier court where such order was passed, and hence, applying that test, namely, the doctrine of judicial discipline, this court is not included to interfere in this writ application.;