Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 411 (ALL)

Bahudhandhi Intermediate College v. Dios, Jaunpur

2016-02-02

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, YASHWANT VARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT Yashwant Varma, J. This special appeal by the Committee of Management has arisen from a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 18 December 2015. By the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, the writ petition filed by the third respondent has been disposed of by directing the Regional Level Committee to examine his claim for regularization on the post of L.T. Grade Teacher in an aided Intermediate Institution in accordance with law after furnishing an opportunity of being heard to the contesting parties. 2. Ordinarily, such an order would be of no prejudice since the matter of regularization has been directed to be only examined by the Regional Level Committee. However, the ground which is pressed in support of the appeal is that the claim of the third respondent had been examined by the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur who had passed an order on 2 August 1990 rejecting it on the ground that there was no vacant post against which the third respondent could have been appointed. This order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 2 August 1990 was the subject matter of a challenge by the third respondent in an earlier writ petition (Writ Petition No.30588 of 1990). This was disclosed in the subsequent writ petition (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.23044 of 1993) out of which the present special appeal arises. When the writ petition was filed, it was stated that the earlier writ petition challenging the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 2 August 1990 was pending. A specific averment to that effect was contained in paragraph 20 of the writ petition. However, it is now common ground that the earlier writ petition was dismissed in default on 26 August 1997. Now, it transpires that in the subsequent writ petition of 1993 in which the impugned order of the learned Single Judge has been passed, the same order of the DIOS dated 2 August 1990 was again sought to be questioned. This course of action was not open once the order of DIOS dated 2 August 1990 was already the subject matter of challenge in an earlier writ petition and particularly when the earlier writ petition was dismissed in default as stated before the Court by both the learned counsel. 3. This course of action was not open once the order of DIOS dated 2 August 1990 was already the subject matter of challenge in an earlier writ petition and particularly when the earlier writ petition was dismissed in default as stated before the Court by both the learned counsel. 3. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that it would be appropriate and proper to remit the proceedings back to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration. This would also furnish to the third respondent reasonable opportunity of adopting suitable remedies as are available in law. 4. For the reasons aforesaid, we allow the special appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 18 December 2015. Writ-A No.23044 of 1993 is accordingly restored to the file of the learned Single Judge for disposal afresh. The special appeal is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.