Ct. No.4 D/L 09.07.2026 (Naba) 06 F.M.A. 1207 of 2022 With CAN 1 of 2022 Somen Das Vs. Union of India & Ors. Mr. Sudip Krishna Dutta, Mr. Barun Chatterjee ...for the Appellant Mr. Ajit Kumar Mishra, Ms. Amrita Pandey ...for the Respondents 1. Heard the learned advocate for the appellant and the learned advocate for the respondents. 2. Earlier also, the petitioner had filed a writ petition. The learned advocate for the appellant submits that since the Court in WPA 1301 of 2021 earlier filed, had directed for reconsideration of the petitioner’s claim, the Court in the second round of litigation in WPA 9625 of 2021 should have passed orders in favour of the writ petitioner. 3. The fact, not in dispute, is conclusion of the recruitment process prior to passing of the order by the Hon’ble Single Judge on 29.07.2022. 4. The order passed in the current writ proceeding on 29.07.2022, has taken into consideration, the fact that the recruitment process is of the year 2018, and that the process was completed and there is no vacancy. 2 5. We find no substance in such submission, let alone any occasion for this Court to interfere with order of the Hon’ble Single Judge after according consideration to the petitioner’s claim, and rejecting the writ petition on 29.07.2022 in the following terms: “The recruitment process is of 2018. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the recruitment process has been completed and there is no vacancy as declared against the subject advertisement. No fruitful purpose will be served in keeping the writ petition pending as the same will not enure to any benefit of the petitioner even if he succeeds in the writ petition establishing the fact that his measurement was not correctly taken by the recruitment authorities as the vacancies have been already fulfilled. That apart and in any event, a litigant should not be encouraged to knock the doors of the Court with successive writ petitions claiming the same relief till such time he/she achieves the desired result. In such circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. Since I have not called for any affidavits, allegations made in the writ petition are deemed to have not been admitted by the respondents.” 6. The conclusion of the Hon’ble Single Judge is fortified by various decisions of the Hon’ble 3 Supreme Court of India in this regard. The settled legal position was taken note of by the Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa and Another vs. Rajkishore Nanda and Others reported in (2010) 6 SCC 777 wherein the Court held that where selection process is over, select list expired and appointments made then at such a belated stage relief cannot be granted. 7. Under the circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the order dated 29.07.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in WPA 9625 of 2021. 8. The appeal is dismissed. 9. Pending application also stands disposed of. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Prasenjit Biswas, J.)