Res judicata barred re-litigation of termination authority after the earlier writ dismissal between the same parties.

A prior writ proceeding, contested on merits and dismissed after full adjudication, operated as res judicata in the later civil suit between the same parties. The controlling principle is that a matter in controversy decided by a competent court cannot be reopened in subsequent litigation, and the effect of res judicata depends on the decision and final order rather than an express discussion of every ground. Because the earlier writ dismissal rejected the grounds underlying the challenge, the respondent was barred from re-agitating the authority of the officer who terminated employment in the civil suit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dismissal of the earlier writ petition operated as res judicata in the subsequent civil suit on the question of the authority of the officer who terminated the respondent's employment.

Analysis: The earlier writ proceeding had been contested on merits and the petition was dismissed after the High Court reversed the relief granted by the single judge. A prior adjudication between the same parties on a matter in controversy, reached after full contest and by a court competent to decide it, operates as res judicata in a later regular suit. The effect of res judicata depends on the decision and final order, not on whether the reasons expressly discuss every ground. Once the writ petition was dismissed, both grounds on which it rested stood rejected, and the respondent could not reopen the issue of the officer's authority in a separate civil suit.

Conclusion: The earlier writ judgment barred the civil suit on the issue of authority, and the plea of res judicata succeeded against the respondent.

---