Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 103 (UTT)

DHEERAJ SAXENA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2015-03-02

ALOK SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Writ petition is filed for the following reliefs: A. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 09.10.2012 passed by respondent no. 3, D.M. Haridwar. B. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 3, D.M. Haridwar to appoint the petitioner against anyone of the vacancies created by Vinay Kumar Jain due to his promotion (within one year), vacancies created due to the termination of Shri Kedar Ballabh Tripathi on his Health ground (within 15 months), and the vacancies created by the termination of Ajay Kumar Jain in May, 2013. C. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus to be issue in favour of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits retrospectively. D. Any other a writ order or direction may be issued to which the Hon’ble Court thing just and proper. 2.Undisputedly, petitioner has filed earlier Writ Petition No. 319 of 2013 (S/S), Dheeraj Saxena vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others for the identical reliefs. 3.Writ Petition No. 319 of 2013 (S/S) was argued by Mr. J.P. Joshi, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. P.C. Bisht, Advocate for the petitioner. However, Writ Petition No. 319 of 2013 (S/S) was dismissed vide judgment dated 20.12.2013. Judgment dated 20.12.2013, dismissing the Writ Petition No. 319 of 2013 (S/S) was challenged by the petitioner in Special Appeal No. 23 of 2014 which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 28.4.2014. Petitioner, thereafter, moved a Review Application No. 370 of 2014 in Special Appeal No. 23 of 2014, however, review application was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 25.7.2014. Thereafter, petitioner has filed present writ petition. 4.Ms. Shobha Saxena, wife of the petitioner, has commenced the arguments in the present writ petition. She has argued that earlier Senior Advocate Mr. J.P. Joshi, who has argued in Writ Petition No. 319 of 2013 (S/S) could not place all the relevant points/materials before this Court. Consequently, Writ Petition No. 319 of 2013 (S/S) was dismissed. She further contends that she has no trust over Mr. D.K. Joshi, Advocate appointed as Amicus Curiae by the State Legal Services Authority. J.P. Joshi, who has argued in Writ Petition No. 319 of 2013 (S/S) could not place all the relevant points/materials before this Court. Consequently, Writ Petition No. 319 of 2013 (S/S) was dismissed. She further contends that she has no trust over Mr. D.K. Joshi, Advocate appointed as Amicus Curiae by the State Legal Services Authority. 5.She was permitted to argue the matter on behalf of the petitioner being wife of the petitioner. On being asked repeatedly as to how subsequent/present writ petition is maintainable in view of the dismissal of the earlier Writ Petition No. 319 of 2013 (S/S) and dismissal of special appeal arising therefrom. She stated since entire materials were not placed before this Court and fraud was played while arguing the earlier writ petition. Therefore, subsequent/present writ petition is maintainable. 6.She has further contended that now there is a new cause of the action in favour of the petitioner in view of the fact that post held by Ajay Jain is available, therefore, petitioner can be accommodated against the post vacated by Mr. Ajay Jain. 7.In my considered opinion that subsequent/present writ petition is not maintainable in view of the dismissal of the earlier writ petition and dismissal of the special appeal and review application filed therein. Petitioner has not challenged the judgment passed by the Division Bench dated 28.4.2014 or dated 25.7.2014. Therefore, both the judgments passed by the Division Bench of this Court have attained finality. Present petition is barred by res judicata. Not placing entire materials before the Court at the time of hearing/disposal of previous litigation does not give rise to any fresh cause of action to file the subsequent writ petition for the identical reliefs. Therefore, present petition fails and is hereby dismissed.