APHC010546072025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 28254 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-15 [3483] Vadde Pavan Karthik ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioner: Ms. Marella Radha Advocate for Respondent: GP for Medical Health FW CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 14th October, 2025. P C : In the earlier round of litigation, the petitioner had preferred a Writ Petition bearing W.P.No.19640 of 2025, which came to be considered along with a batch of petitions and was dismissed by virtue of judgment and order dated 13.08.2025. The petitioners in that batch had sought admission into MBBS and BDS Courses for the academic years 2025-26 and had approached this Court challenging the requirement in notification, dated 22.07.2025, issued by Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, which prescribed a requirement that the applicant should have studied or resided in the local area where he/she was seeking admission. The period prescribed was to be not less than four consecutive academic years ending with the academic year in which the candidate had appeared for the relevant qualifying examination. 2 HCJ & RCJ WP_28254_2025 2. In the present petition, the petitioner is reiterating a similar prayer by stating that, a ground which was otherwise available, could not be highlighted at the time of arguments, inasmuch as the petition had been filed through a joint affidavit along with others. 3. In our opinion, the petition is clearly not maintainable as the principle of constructive res judicata underlying Explanation IV of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure would squarely apply in the present case as well. 4. This issue came up earlier before a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers’ Association vs. State of Maharashtra1, which was followed by the Apex Court in M. Nagabhushana vs. State of Karnataka and others2, wherein in paragraphs 21 and 23, the Apex Court held thus: “21. Following all these principles, a Constitution Bench of this Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers' Assn. v. State of Maharashtra [(1990) 2 SCC 715] laid down the following principle: (SCC p. 741, para 35) “35. … an adjudication is conclusive and final not only as to the actual matter determined but as to every other matter which the parties might and ought to have litigated and have had decided as incidental to or essentially connected with subject-matter of the litigation and every matter coming into the legitimate purview of the original action both in respect of the matters of claim and defence. Thus, the principle of constructive res 1 (1990) 2 SCC 715 2 (2011) 3 SCC 408 3 HCJ & RCJ WP_28254_2025 judicata underlying Explanation IV of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was applied to writ case. We, accordingly hold that the writ case is fit to be dismissed on the ground of res judicata.” 23. Thus, the attempt to re-argue the case which has been finally decided by the court of last resort is a clear abuse of process of the court, regardless of the principles of res judicata, as has been held by this Court in K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi [(1998) 3 SCC 573] . 5. Reference in this regard can also be made to a Constitution Bench judgment rendered in the case of Devilal Modi vs. Sales Tax Officer, Ratlam and others3, where the Apex Court held: “9. … because if the doctrine of constructive res judicata is not applied to writ proceedings, it would be open to the party to take one proceeding after another and urge new grounds every time; and that plainly is inconsistent with considerations of public policy to which we have just refereed.” 6. Be that as it may, we hold that this Writ Petition is not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this case, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ. RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J. SSN 3 AIR 1965 SC 1150