Shri Ranjit Singh vs Union Public Service Commission

Indermeet Kaur, J.—None has appeared for the appellant in spite of the matter having been called. Court notice has been served on the appellant. The matter is on board since 10th August, 2010.

This second appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 8.8.1988. The plaintiff Ranjit Singh had filed a suit for declaration and a relief of injunction. The facts alleged are that the plaintiff appeared in the Assistant Grade Examination 1981. His roll number was 27106. On 3.10.1981, he appeared in the English Part-II in the afternoon session. plaintiff completed the answers in 40 minutes prior to the prescribed period and answer sheet was submitted to the invigilator. On 30.11.1981, plaintiff received a letter from the defendant/UPSC cancelling candidature of the plaintiff for the said examination and debarring him from appearing in any further examination for the next ten years. This order was questioned by the plaintiff by the aforenoted suit; his contention was that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the plaintiff; his case was that no show cause notice as alleged had been issued to him. He sought a personal hearing. plaintiff had also filed a writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed in limine and not on merits.

The primary defence of the defendant was that the suit was barred by res judicata as the matter in controversy has already been adjudicated upon in Civil Writ Petition No. 372 of 1986 filed by the plaintiff which had been decided on 27.4.1984.

Trial Judge while disposing of issue No. 1 had held this issue in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff. It was held that in view of the judgment of the High Court rendered in the aforenoted writ petition which was an order on the merits of the petition, the suit of the plaintiff is barred by res judicata.

The finding of the Trial Judge was endorsed in the impugned judgment dated 8.8.1988. It was reiterated that the orders dated 27.4.1984 passed in the writ petition were matters substantially in issue that the subsequent suit which had been filed by the petitioner and this matter already having been finally heard and decided by the court hearing the writ petition, the suit was barred u/s 11 of the CPC. Appeal was dismissed.

In this second appeal a substantial question of law has been formulated on 15.11.1988 which reads as follows:

Whether the suit is barred by resjudicata or principles analogous thereto in view of the order dated 27.4.84 in C.W. 1132/84.

Before dealing with this submission, it is necessary to extract the order dated 27.4.1984 which had been proved in that suit proceeding as Ex. PW-1/E which inter alia reads as follows:

The only contention is that petitioner has not been given opportunity under Rule 12 of the relevant Rules to show cause against the alleged charge of using unfair means during the examination. According to the petitioner he did not receive the notice sent by the Commission though it is not denied that the notice was received by his parents. This is too far fetched a story to accept. Dismissed.

The present suit is a suit for declaration and consequential relief. The prayers in the suit find mention on page No. 10 of the plaint and are reproduced as follows:

i) declare that impugned order dated 30.11.1982 is illegal and void-ab-initio.

ii) also declare that the subsequent order of the UPSC dated 24.1.1984, 19.11.1985 and 24.4.1986 are also illegal and void-ab-initio.

iii) issue decree of permanent injunction restraining the respondent from giving effect to the impugned order dated 30.11.1982 and the subsequent order dated 24.1.1984,19.11.85 and 24.4.1986.

iv) Issue a mandatory direction to the respondent to allow the petitioner to take further examination conducted by UPSC and to declare the plaintiff�s result for the Asstt. Grade Examination, 1981 by directing that the impugned orders are non-effective and non-existence.

v) allow the cost of the suit, viz pass such order/orders, as deemed fit in the interest of justice.

On 30.11.1982, the plaintiff had received a letter from the defendant cancelling his candidature and debarring him from appearing in any examination for ten years. The representations of the plaintiff were rejected vide communication dated 24.1.1984 reiterated on 19.11.1985 and lastly on 24.4.1986. The contention of the plaintiff all along as is evident from the body of the plaint was that he has not used any unfair means; he was possessed of the requisite qualification; personal hearing had been illegally denied to him. No opportunity of hearing had been granted to him. This is violative of principle of natural justice, equity and good conscience.

The order dated 27.4.1984 has reflected all these contentions of the petitioner. It has categorically recorded the grievance of the petitioner which was that he never received any notice before his candidature was cancelled; he was not given an opportunity of representation to show cause about the alleged charge of using unfair means attributed to him. These contentions were rejected in the aforenoted order dated 27.4.1984. These are the same issues which had been sought to be agitated before the Court below and this is evident from the body of the plaint as also the prayers made in the suit.

The doctrine of res judicata as contained in Section 11 of the CPC has been engrafted as a public policy to give finality to a litigation. Parties are not permitted to agitate and re-agitate the same issues over and over again. There is no quarrel to the proposition that principle of res judicata applies to writ proceedings. The matters in issue before the writ Court i.e. the opportunity of fair hearing not having been given to the petitioner, notice not having been served upon him, had been rejected. Both the Court below had rightly held that Section 11 of the CPC bars the said suit. The legal proposition is accordingly answered against the appellant.

There is no merit in the appeal. It is dismissed.