Sabit Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Vipin Sanghi, CJ

The present appeal is directed against the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in WPSS No.1329 of 2020 dated 17.08.2022. The learned Single Judge has not found merit in the said petition and dismissed the same.

The case of the appellant is that he was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 10.08.2004 by the Manager of Janta Junior High School, Harchandpur-Nijagpur, Post Gurukul Narson, District Haridwar. Subsequently, that school was taken in grant-in-aid category. He filed this petition to seek regularization.

Due to filing of the said petition, his services were discontinued. He approached the Court by preferring WPSS No.749 of 2014 seeking regularization of his services, that relief was denied with the dismissal of the writ-petition on 29.02.2016. The appellant’s special appeal No.83 of 2016 was also dismissed by the Division Bench on 05.05.2016. However, he was granted liberty to raise his grievance with regard to his not being allotted work after he raised the claim for regularization.

He once again preferred second petition being WPSS No.392 of 2018 which he withdrew with liberty to file representation.

The writ-petition preferred by him in which the impugned order was passed is the third round of litigation initiated by the appellant. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ-petition while observing as follows:-

“10. One of the basic fundamental of justice dispensation system is finality of the judgment delivered in a dispute. The history as narrated hereinabove makes it abundantly clear that in the first petition, it was the grievance of the petitioner that he should be allowed to work as an Assistant Teacher; his services should be regularized; he should not be removed without showing any cause or without affording any opportunity of hearing. Interesting the relief (iv) sought in the first petition was direction for the respondents to decide the representation that may be made by the petitioner. Fact remains that the first petition filed by the petitioner was rejected by this Court on 29.02.2016. The special appeal preferred against it was also rejected. Court, of course gave a liberty to the petitioner, but not to agitate the same issue. The liberty was given with regard to the injury, which has been allegedly suffered in the form of not been allowed to work. Para 10 of the rejoinder of the petitioner, filed in the first petition has been quoted in para 4 of the judgment of the special appeal. In it, the petitioner had stated that, in fact, he was paid salary in the school. He worked in the school.

It is true that in the second petition the Court gave a liberty to the petitioner to make a representation, but the judgment dated 07.01.2020, passed in the second petition cannot override the judgment passed in the first petition and importantly, the judgment passed on 05.05.2016 in the special appeal. The issue has been decided finally by this Court. The judgment dated 05.05.2016, passed in the Special Appeal No.83 of 2016, has attained finality. The issue cannot be agitated further. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to reconsider the controversy. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed”.

It appears that the appellant has repeatedly been attempting his luck to seek regularization even though he has served only for the limited period between 17.08.2004 to 24.05.2005 as an alternate arrangement. The appointment of the appellant was not made in a public process by issuing a public advertisement.

We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order.

Accordingly, the present special appeal is dismissed.