Single Judge dismissed writ petition challenging appointment order as underlying select list had attained finality. Court also held joint petition with variable rights was not maintainable and awarded costs.
Writ petition dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000 payable to Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7654/2012
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR
ORDER
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7654/2012 (Pawan Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.)
Date of Order : 19.09.2014
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA
Mr. Sandeep Saxena, for the petitioners. Mr. S.C. Gupta ] Mr. Mahendra Shah ], for the respondents. BY THE COURT
This writ petition challenges the order dated 01.05.2009, passed by the Director, Directorate Ayurved Department, Rajasthan, Ajmer. The said order is consequential to the select list 19.03.2002 drawn by the Directorate for appointment to the post of Ayurved Junior Nurse/Compounder under the Rajasthan (Ayurved, Unani, Homeopathy and Naturopathy Subordinate Service) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter 'the Rule of 1996') pursuant to an advertisement dated 24.04.1999. It has also been prayed that the appointment of respondent Nos.3 to 5 allegedly below to the petitioners in said select list be set aside and the petitioners be appointment in their stead.
At the outset, the counsels for the respondents have submitted that the writ petition as laid is hit by res judicata or in any event constructive res judicata. They submit that based on a challenge to the select list dated 19.03.2002 for appointment to the post of Junior Nurse/Compounder, SBCWP No.4015/2002
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7654/2012
(2)
was filed by the petitioners, where the case inter alia set up was that despite securing higher percentage of marks than those appointed, they were wrongly excluded from the select list and illegally deprived of appointment to the post of Junior Nurse/Compounder under the Rules of 1996 pursuant to the advertisement dated 24.04.1999. It has been submitted that the said writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 13.08.2002 and albeit a D.B. Special Appeal was filed thereagainst (D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.2625/2011), it was withdrawn on 06.04.2012 with liberty to file a fresh writ petition on the basis of the order dated 01.05.2009.
Counsel for the respondents submitted that the order dated 01.05.2009 is only consequential to the select list dated 19.03.2002 and in fact passed in compliance there—as directed by this court in SBCWP No.2393/2002 decided on 13.08.2002 and upheld by the Division Bench on 12.09.2008. And the challenge to the select list dated 19.03.2002 having been earlier dismissed, a consequential order cannot be challenged by way a fresh writ petition—no matter what the prayer of counsel for the appellants while withdrawing the D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.2625/2011 and no matter what the liberty granted by the Division Bench. The obvious effect of the withdrawal of the D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.2625/2011 was to lend finality to the judgment of the Single Bench passed on 13.08.2002 upholding the select list dated 19.03.2002. The same aspect of the matter
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7654/2012
(3)
cannot now be re-agitated afresh in this writ petition notwithstanding the liberty granted by the Division Bench
casually on the mere askance without taking into consideration the consequences of the finality of the order dated 13.08.2002 passed by the learned single judge in SBCWP No.4015/2002 and upheld by the Hon'ble Division Bench in a State appeal on 12.09.2008.
Having heard the counsel for the petitioners and the respondents, in my considered view the objection to the maintainability of the writ petition deserves to be upheld. The challenge to the exclusion of the petitioners from appointment to the post of Junior Nurse/Compounder under the Rules of 1996 pursuant to the advertisement dated 24.04.1999 even though founded upon their alleged better comparative merit over those selected was dismissed on 13.08.2002 in SBCWP No.4015/2002. The dismissal has attained finality with the withdrawal of the D.B. Special Appeal there-against by the petitioners before the Division Bench on 06.04.2012. The liberty granted by the Division Bench is not an adjudication of binding nature and cannot override the principle of res judicata and the public policy which it encompass prohibiting re-adjudication of matters earlier adjudicated and final.
Aside of the aforesaid, it would also be in place to observe that a joint writ petition with petitioners having variable rights, as in the present case, where petitioner No.1 claims
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7654/2012
(4)
appointment as a OBC candidate and the petitioner No.2 & 3 as general category candidates, is prescription for confusion in adjudicating the writ petition. In my considered opinion, a joint writ petition can only be filed with the leave of the Court where the cause of action of the petitioners is identical without any variation both in fact and law. Such a situation does not obtain in this petition.
The writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/to be paid to the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority within four weeks from today primarily for the reason of seeking to reagitate a matter / issue already adjudicated in a petition in which the petitioners themselves were parties—on the pretext of challenging a consequential order (01.05.2009) when the underlying order dated 19.03.2002 had attained finality (SBCWP No.4015/2002 decided on 13.08.2002).
(ALOK SHARMA), J
MS/-
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.- Manoj Solanki, P.A.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging a consequential order can be maintained when the underlying impugned order has become final by withdrawal of special appeal.
Whether a joint writ petition having petitioners with variable rights (OBC and General category) is maintainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pawan Kumar Yadav & Ors.
The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Allok Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
