Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 353 (UTT)

GIRISH KUMAR v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2021-07-13

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA

body2021
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. (Via Video Conferencing) Before this Court deals with the vitalities of the arguments, which has been extended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as it has engaged consideration in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 723 of 2021, it becomes inevitable for the Court to deal with the manner in which the sincerity and honesty with which the petitioner has pursued his matter before this Court. 2. Before venturing to give the details of chain of litigation, this Court feels it to be appropriate to observe, that this is the six writ petitions in succession for almost the principal relief and cause of action, seeking promotion initially on the post of lecturer and subsequently thereafter on the post of Headmaster. The petitioner had filed a Writ Petition being Writ Petition (S/S) No. 463 of 2017, Girish Kumar Vs. State and others, before this Court on 29.03.2017, in which, briefly, he has stated that he was appointed on the post of Lecturer (Physics) on ad-hoc basis, as back as on 17.07.1990, and thereafter, he was posted in different Government Intermediate Colleges, situated in hilly areas; but, because of certain diseases, which he was suffering from, he has represented his case for seeking his transfer to some other institution and consequently, he contends that as a result of the appointment he was working as a Lecturer (Physics) in the Government Inter College, Manan, Almora. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that since his grievance was not being redressed, he had earlier also filed a writ petition being Writ Petition (S/S) No. 175 of 2010, which was disposed of by the coordinate Bench of this Court, to decide the representation of the petitioner, treating him to be a patient of asthma so that he may be placed at a suitable conducive place, which may suit to his physical problem, which he was suffering from. 4. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent No. 7, had issued a Circular for transfer of the Lecturers and since his claim for being posted at the suitable place, according to his contentions raised in his representation dated 24.11.2016, was not being considered by the respondent, hence the petitioner had filed the Writ Petition (S/S) No. 463 of 2017, wherein the petitioner had prayed for the following reliefs:- “i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no. 1 to pass the order of promotion showing the suitable place of posting in the Government Colleges of District Udham Singh Nagar or District Haridwar or plain area of District Nainital or plain area of District Dehadun looking the ailing condition of the petitioner. ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents no. 1 & 2 to decide the case of the petitioner dated 24.11.2016 within two weeks or before declaring the result of promotion list of Head Master for teaching High School classes. iii) Issue any other writ or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. iv) Award the cost of petition to the petitioner." 5. In fact, in a nutshell, if the backgrounds of the aforesaid writ petition are taken into consideration, it is an aspect of transfer which the petitioner apparently was seeking on account of the physical conditions; but, in the relief clause, the mandamus, which was sought for by the petitioner for the respondent No. 1 was, to pass a suitable order of promotion posting him at a suitable place. He had further prayed for a writ of mandamus, to the respondents to decide the case of the petitioner, as agitated by him in the representation dated 24.11.2016 before the Director, School Education, praying for redressal of his grievance to the following effect:- ^^vr% Jh jkeÑ".k iqfu;ky vij funs'kd ¼ek/;fed f'k{kk½ xढoky e.My ikSM+h ds vuqlkj inksUufr ij dksbZ izHkko@vlj ugha gksA vr% mijksDrkuqlkj vkils fouez fuosnu gS fd esjh inksUufr ugha jksdh tk;sA iz/kkukpk;Z Jh egs'k pUæ 'kekZ LFkkukUrj.k ds fy, rhu ckj fy[k pqds gSa rFkk f'k{kk foHkkx ds ekaxus ij inksUufr ds fy, 01 ckj fy[k pqds gSa rFkk i=kpkj Hkh Hkst pqds gSaA eSa inksUufr ds ek/;e ls fo|ky; pykÅaxkA vr% vkidk vkHkkjh jgwaxkA vkidh egku n;k gksxhA** 6. If annexure 1 to the writ petition is taken into consideration, the earlier Writ Petition (S/S) No. 175 of 2010, which was preferred by the petitioner, seeking for the cancellation of his transfer dated 22.08.2009, it was disposed of by the coordinate Bench of this Court, vide its judgment dated 01.04.2010, directing the Director Education, Uttarakhand to decide the representation of the petitioner, as against the relief sought for the cancellation of his transfer. The relevant direction issued by the Court is extracted hereunder:- “Considering the facts and circumstances that has been brought on record, I dispose of the writ petition directing the authority concerned to decide the representation of the petitioner by a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order." 7. In the said writ petition, the petitioner has confined his prayer for writ of mandamus which was ultimately considered by the learned Single Judge of this Court and the writ petition was disposed of by the judgment dated 27.03.2017 with following directions: - “Mr. S.S. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Pandey, Standing Counsel for the State/respondent nos. 1 to 4. Heard. The petitioner is in feeder cadre for promotion to the higher post. The apprehension of the petitioner is that after his promotion, he would be transferred to the remote area. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion, in accordance with law and if he is promoted, he shall not be posted in the inaccessible or hard area." 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion, in accordance with law and if he is promoted, he shall not be posted in the inaccessible or hard area." 8. The writ petition was again disposed of, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion in accordance with law and if the petitioner is promoted he will not be posted in an inaccessible area or hard area. 9. After the disposal of the above writ petition by the coordinate Bench of this Court by the judgment dated 27.03.2017, the petitioner had preferred yet, an another writ petition being Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1351 of 2017, on 08.06.2017, i.e. within 3 months of the earlier judgment, in which he has sought for the following reliefs:- “i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the decision dated 11.05.2017 passed by respondent no. 2 (Annexure No. 10 to this writ petition). ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent No. 1 to call for counselling for the promotion of Lecturer like in the case of junior Lecturer named as Sri Atul Kumar Agarwal (4733), Sri Prem Chandra Pathak (4737), Sri Ghanshyam Bhatt (4742A) and Sri Dr. Sanjay Tripathi (4742) (of the seniority list and counselling list at serial no. 20, 21, 22, 23) or keep one post reserve for the promotion of the petitioner till the pendency of the writ petition. iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no. 1 to pass the order of promotion showing the suitable place of posting in the Government Colleges of District udham Singh Nagar or District Haridwar or plain area of District Nainital or plain area of District Dehradun looking the ailing condition of the petitioner. iv) Issue any other writ or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. v) Award the cost of petition to the petitioner." 10. iv) Issue any other writ or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. v) Award the cost of petition to the petitioner." 10. In fact, if the prayer clause of the writ petition is taken into consideration, which is extracted hereinabove, the petitioner has challenged the decision taken dated 11.05.2017 taken by the Director, Education in compliance of the judgment dated 23.03.2017 rendered in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 463 of 2017. Simultaneously, there was a prayer for a writ of mandamus praying for the direction to the respondent No. 1 to call for a cancelling for the promotion of lecturers, like in the case of the junior lecturers, like him the name of whom were given in the second relief clause and seeking a direction that respondent No. 1 may pass an order of promotion by placing the petitioner at a suitable place of posting in the Government College of Udham Singh Nagar or Haridwar or any plain district of the State of Uttarakhand. 11. The impugned order dated 11.05.2017, which was put to challenge by the petitioner in the said writ petition, in fact, the said order dated 11.05.2017, was an order, which was passed in compliance of the directions which were passed in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 463 of 2017, directing to decide the representation of the petitioner. However, this writ petition being Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1351 of 2017, we should not be obligated by the fact that it was a writ petition claiming for the promotion, as well as the challenge was to the order of rejection of his representation for promotion as it was directed to be decided. The said writ petition, after being admitted on 31.05.2018, is still pending consideration, and no final orders have been passed as on date. Hence, this Court is not deliberating on merits of the said writ petition, which is yet to be considered. 12. The said writ petition, after being admitted on 31.05.2018, is still pending consideration, and no final orders have been passed as on date. Hence, this Court is not deliberating on merits of the said writ petition, which is yet to be considered. 12. The petitioner during the pendency of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1351 of 2017 (referred above) had preferred the third writ petition being Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2169 of 2018, wherein, in the said writ petition, the petitioner had challenged the order dated 17.03.2018, as was passed by respondent No. 3, therein, by virtue of which the representation as submitted by the petitioner for the purposes of promotion, as well as for his posting at the plain districts of the Uttarakhand which was the relief identical to Writ Petition (S/S0 No. 1351 of 2017 (which was pending) on account of his physical ailment, was considered and it was rejected by the Divisional Additional Director, Secondary Education, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri on 17.03.2018. 13. In this writ petition too, i.e. Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2169 of 2018, the second prayer, which was sought by the petitioner was to complete the proceedings by examining all the documents annexed with the writ petition and pass a suitable order of promotion of the petitioner as a Headmaster of the high school. The Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2169 of 2018, as preferred by the petitioner too is still pending consideration and has not yet been decided on its own merits. Hence, at this stage, I am not venturing on the merits of this writ petition. 14. It is during the pendency of the aforesaid two writ petitions i.e. WPSS No. 1351 of 2017 and WPSS No. 2169 of 2018, we should not be escaping the fact that it has been a consistent claim of the petitioner for the grant of promotion by way of a writ of mandamus, as well as his placement to a suitable place in a plain district according to his choice as was regularly pleaded in the writ petition. 15. During its pendency, the petitioner has preferred the 4th writ petition i.e. Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2431 of 2019, wherein the petitioner had sought for the following reliefs:- “i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 3 to direct the respondent no. 15. During its pendency, the petitioner has preferred the 4th writ petition i.e. Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2431 of 2019, wherein the petitioner had sought for the following reliefs:- “i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 3 to direct the respondent no. 3 to send the whole documents of the petitioner which has been asked by respondent no. 1 through his letter dated 28.05.2019 (Annexure No. 3) and by respondent no. 2 by his letter dated 03.08.2019 (Annexure No. 4). ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 and 2 to take the appropriate decision after receiving the documents from the office of respondent no. 3 as they have asked vide letter dated 28.05.2019 and 03.08.2019 from their offices respectively. iii) Issue any other or further writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. iv) To award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner" 16. In fact, yet again, if the writ petition is taken into consideration, it was a writ of mandamus, which was filed by the petitioner, seeking a direction to respondent No. 3, to direct the respondent therein in the writ petition to take a decision with regard to the claim of the petitioner after receiving and scrutinising all the documents for the promotion. This writ petition i.e. WPSS No. 2431 of 2019, was once again disposed of by the coordinate Bench of this Court by the judgment dated 23.10.2019. The relevant part of the judgment is extracted hereunder:- “After arguing a while, learned counsel for the petitioner would confine his prayer only to the extent petitioner may be permitted to move representation before the competent authority/respondent no. 3 and competent authority be directed to take decision on the same as per law. Considering the submissions advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to make representation before the competent authority for redressal of his grievance, who shall in tern take decision on the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. Let a certified copy of this order be supplied to the counsel for the petitioner today itself, as per rules." Meaning thereby, there was no adjudication on merits of the writ petition. 17. In fact, the disposal of the writ petition was with the direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner for the redressal of the grievance of the petitioner which had been common in all the writ petitions, in relation to the relief claimed for, for the grant of promotion in the writ petition. It was not be inappropriate to say that the strategy adopted by the petitioner by filing successive writ petition, was just by cleverly refraining the relief clause with the language of writ petition. 18. After the disposal of the writ petition dated 23.10.2019, the respondent, in fact, had considered the directions which were issued on 23.10.2019, and had decided the matter by an order dated 03.11.2019. This order of deciding the representation of the petitioner dated 03.11.2019, has not been subjected to challenge, by the petitioner, in any other writ petitions. Hence, as far as the decision taken in compliance of the order dated 23.10.2019, would be deemed to have attained finality qua the petitioner and he will be bound by it. This fact could be apparent, that the decision was taken from the Annexure 6, appended with the Writ Petition (S/S) No. 180 of 2020, Girish Kumar Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. The relevant para i.e. para 9 of the Writ Petition (S/S) No. 180 of 2020, is extracted hereunder:- “9. That the petitioner served the copy of the Hon'ble High Court's order dated 23.10.2019, on 03.11.2019 to the respondent No 1 & 2, the respondent No. 1 on 08.11.2019 asked to the Director, School Education to submit the records of the petitioner and the record is already has been submitted by the subordinate officer in the office of the Secretary and Director, but till date the matter has not been expedited and not any positive order has been passed in favour of the petitioner in regard to promotion on the post of Headmaster. For kind information of this Hon'ble High Court, copy of representation dated 03.11.2019 and on its instruction to the respondent No. 2 from the office of the respondent No. 1, vide Government Order No. 493/XXIV-uol`ftr@19-01(11)/2018 dated 15.11.2019, is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure No. 6 colly to this writ petition." Relevant part of Annexure No. 6 to the above writ petition is extracted hereunder:- W.P. No. 2431/2019 fnukad 23-10-2019 ikfjr vkns'k mijksDr 'kklukns'kksa ds izR;kosnu inksUufr ds fy, lIrkg esa fuLrkfjr djus dh Ñik djsaA to take decision on the same. xksiuh; vk[;k fjDr LFkku jkŒbŒekŒfoŒ ekud ¼dk'khiqj- m/ke flag uxj@ftyk gfj}kj½ o"kZ 2011&12 01-04-2011 ls 31-03-2012 dksbZ izfrdwy izfof"V ugha feyh o"kZ 2012&13 01-04-2012 ls 31-03-2013 dksbZ izfrdwy izfof"V ugha feyh o"kZ 2013&14 01-04-2013 ls 31-03-2014 dksbZ izfrdwy izfof"V ugha feyh o"kZ 2013&14 01-04-2014 ls 31-03-2015 dksbZ izfrdwy izfof"V ugha feyh o"kZ 2015&16 01-04-2015 ls 31-03-2016 dksbZ izfrdwy izfof"V ugha feyh o"kZ 2016&17 01-04-2016 ls 31-03-2017 dksbZ izfrdwy izfof"V ugha feyh fnukad 06-03-2017 dks fn;k izek.k i= foxr o"kZ esa dksbZ izfrdwy izfof"V ugha feyh gS rFkk fnukad 26-05-2017 dks fn;k izek.k dk;Z O;ogkj vkpj.k vPNk gSA o"kZ 2017&18 01-04-2017 ls 31-03-2018 dksbZ izfrdwy izfof"V ugha feyh ¼izek.k i= layXu½ o"kZ 2018&19 01-04-2018 ls 31-03-2019 dksbZ izfrdwy izfof"V ugha feyh ¼izek.k i= layXu½ bl ij funs'kd ¼ekñf'k½ xढ+oky e.My ikSM+h ds fu.kZ; izñvñ@f'kfoj@110&116@2017&18 fnukad 06-03-2018 ¼izfrdwy izfof"V½ vko';d i=kad layXu dj jgk g¡w&inksUufr ds fy, vuq'kaflr i=kad@inksUufr@fnukad 21-02-2017 ¼vUrxZr eq[; f'k{kk vf/kdkjh gfj}kj ds ik=ad 868@fnukad 30-04- nh x;h izfrdwy izfof"V foyqIr@lekIr djrs gq, inksUufr djus dh Ñik djsaxs egku n;k gksxhA vkids vk'khokZn dk lnSo vkdka{khA E.W.P. No. 2169-2019 esa rFkk mijksDr lHkh layXu gSA izkFkhZ fxjh'k dqekj izoDrk HkkSfrd foKku jkŒbŒdkŒ ykyढkax] gfj}kj 19. The petitioner had preferred the 5th writ petition, being Writ Petition (S/S) No. 180 of 2020, seeking a writ of mandamus to the following effect:- “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 & 2 to take the speedy decision in the case of the petitioner on the basis of facts of the case. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 & 2 to issue the speaking order taking into account the orders of the Hon'ble High Court dated 23.10.2019 and on its endorsement made by the respondents, perusing the paper book available in their office concerned to the petitioner. (iii) Issue any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iv) Award the cost of petition in favour of the petitioner." 20. In fact, if the second relief of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 180 of 2020, is taken into consideration, the petitioner, by way of seeking a writ of mandamus has sought a direction for the enforcement of the order dated 23.10.2019, which was passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2431 of 2019, without giving a challenge to the decision taken by the respondents on 03.11.2019. 21. This writ petition, where a writ of mandamus was sought, for seeking a speedy decision with regard to the claim of the petitioner to be considered for promotion was disposed of by the coordinate Bench of this Court by the judgment dated 17.01.2020, and the following direction was issued by the coordinate Bench of this Court:- “Mr. S.S. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.C. Bisht, S.C. along with Mrs. Indu Sharma, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakand. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 1 & 2 to take the speedy decision in the case of the petitioner on the basis of facts of the case and seeking a writ, order of direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 1 & 2 to issue the speaking order taking into account the order of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 23.10.2019 and on its endorsement made by the respondents, perusing the paper book available in their office pertaining to the petitioner. 1 & 2 to issue the speaking order taking into account the order of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 23.10.2019 and on its endorsement made by the respondents, perusing the paper book available in their office pertaining to the petitioner. After arguing a while, learned counsel for the petitioner confined his prayer only to the extent that the writ petition may be disposed of by directing the competent authority to decide the representation within a period of six weeks in the light of the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, which is not opposed by learned State Counsel. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the competent authority to decide the representation of the petitioner, if not already decided, in the light of the order dated 23.10.2019 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Urgency application stands disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of." 22. This writ petition was disposed of with the direction to the respondent to decide the representation of the petitioner, if not already decided in the light of the order passed which was passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court on 23.10.2019. 23. After the disposal of the Writ Petition (S/S) No. 180 of 2020, the petitioner has filed a Contempt Petition, being CLCON No. 305 of 2020, alleging thereof non-compliance of the directions given by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 180 of 2020 dated 17.01.2020, because the representation as directed therein by the judgement of 17.01.2020, was not decided by the respondent. Notices were issued to the respondents by an order dated 09.09.2020. The contempt petition was also pending consideration before this Court. 24. Notices were issued to the respondents by an order dated 09.09.2020. The contempt petition was also pending consideration before this Court. 24. Its that during the pendency of the contempt petition, since the order dated 17.01.2020, is alleged to have been non complied, the respondent had proceeded to pass an order on 01.07.2020 and has rejected the claim of the petitioner; by an order No. fof/k izdks'B&¼ekè;fed½@1640@2019&20 dated 22.02.2020, which has been passed by the Director Education, while making reference to order, which has been passed in WPSS No. 2431 of 2019 dated 23.10.2019, and the same was communicated to the petitioner by an order dated 01.07.2020, informing thereof that the Director has taken a decision and by an order dated 22.02.2020, which was passed in compliance of the order passed by the Court on 17.01.2020. It is this order, which has now been put to challenge and in the present writ petition, once again the petitioner had sought a writ of mandamus as one of the reliefs, to provide the promotional benefits to the petitioner on the post of Headmaster, as it has been given to the juniors to the petitioner, and also simultaneously, with a direction to take an action against respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The relief clause, as sought for in the Writ Petition (S/S) No. 723 of 2021 is extracted hereunder:.... “i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 01.07.2020 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) passed by respondent no. 4/5. ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 and 2 to provide the promotional benefits to the petitioner on the post of Headmaster as it has been given to the juniors to the petitioner as pleaded in the writ petition. iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to take action against the respondent no. 4/5 for misleading and erroneous decision in the case of the petitioner as a result the present writ petition has been filed. iv) Issue any other or further writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. v) To award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner." 25. iv) Issue any other or further writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. v) To award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner." 25. The learned counsel for the petitioner had argued this writ petition, which has been preferred as fresh writ petition on 25.06.2021 at a belated stage challenging the order dated 01.07.2020, on the ground that under the distribution of responsibilities to the various authorities created under the Education Department, as it has been notified by the Government Order, issued on 09.10.2012, being Government Order No. 599(1)/XXIV-2/2012-6(3)2012, he contends that in the light of the distribution of powers, conferred to the Director, it was perhaps the Director, who was competent to decide the matter and not the Additional Director, who has passed the impugned order dated 01.07.2020, which has been put to challenge in the present writ petition i.e. WPSS No. 723 of 2021. 26. Apart from that, he submits that respondents have been arbitrarily treating the petitioner, though despite he fulfilling all his eligibility, to be considered for a promotion, they have been deliberately avoiding to process the documents of the petitioner to consider the claim of promotion of the petitioner. 27. In response to it, while answering the legal plea which was pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, about the competence of Additional Director, to pass the impugned order dated 01.07.2020, Mr. P.C. Bisth, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, for the State, has argued that, in fact, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of the Government Order dated 09.10.2012, contending thereof that it is rather the Director, who is competent to decide the matter in relation to the teachers, in fact, it has been complied with in its letter and spirit and to justify his argument, he has drawn the attention of this Court to the part of the order, which was a communication made by the Additional Director (Madhyamic Shiksha), Garhwal Mandal, Pauri, to the petitioner and has observed that in fact, the principal order has been passed by the Directorate on 22.02.2020, and the decision on the representation of the petitioner has been taken by the Director Education only. Hence, he wants to submit that, in fact, the order and if the language of the same is taken into consideration, which is extracted hereunder: ^^funs'kky; ds vkns'k lañ@fof/k izdks"B&¼ek/;fed½@1640@2019&20 fnukad 22 Qjojh 2020 fuxsZr dj fuLrkj.k fd;k tk pqdk gS] tks fd ;kph dks Hkh i`"Bkafdr gSA funs'kky; ds mDr vkns'k ds lEcU/k esa ;kph dks voxr djk;k x;k fd l{ke Lrj ls ek0 U;k;ky; ds vkns'k dk vuqikyu fd;k tk pqdk gS lkFk gh fjV ;kfpdk la[;k 2431@,l0,l0@2019 esa vij funs'kd ek/;fed f'k{kk xढoky e.My ikSM+h izfroknh ugha gS bl dkj.k mDr fjV ;kfpdk esa ek0 U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds Øe esa e.My dk;kZy; ls vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tkuk lEHko ugha gSA** 28. In fact, it is the Director, who has taken the decision on the representation of the petitioner on 22.02.2020, and not the Additional Director, as it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, because according to the arguments of the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, it was only a communication of an order which was made by the Additional Director and not the principal order of deciding the claim of the petitioner, in compliance of the directions issued by the coordinate Bench of this Court on 17.01.2020, and that could further be quite clarified from the conclusion which has been drawn in the order where it refers that the Directorate's order and the decision dated 22.02.2020, has been supplied to the petitioner in compliance of the order passed by the Court. 29. Thus the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order has been passed by the Additional Director, who is not competent under the Government Order dated 09.10.2012, is not sustainable, because in fact the principal order of deciding the claim of the petitioner on his representation as directed on 17.01.2020, has been passed by the Directorate on 22.02.2020, and the said order has not been placed on record nor the same has been put to challenge by the petitioner. Hence, the argument extended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, pertaining to the competence of the Additional Director, is not sustainable and also in the light of the fact that in case if the powers of the Additional Director, which has been given under the Government Order dated 09.10.2012, particularly, in sub-Clause (2) is taken into consideration, the power of delegation has been vested with the Director to exercise the powers by the Additional Director and the communication of a decision which was made by the Directorate on 22.02.2020, which would amount that the principal decision was only communicated by the Additional Director in compliance of sub-clause (2) of the Government Order dated 09.10.2012, where the work distribution has been assigned to the Additional Director. 30. The learned counsel for the petitioner, after the culmination of the arguments had argued that he may be granted an opportunity or a direction may be issued to the respondents to serve him the copy of the order which is said to have been passed by the Additional Director on 22.02.2020. In fact, this prayer at this stage is declined to be accepted for the reason being that it is not the case of the petitioner in the writ petition, ever pleaded at any stage that the order passed by the Director on 22.02.2020, was never served upon him or it was not in his knowledge. In the absence of there being any pleading to the said effect and since the decision was taken by the Director himself on 22.02.2020, the presumption goes that the order was communicated to the petitioner, but in the absence of its challenge given, therein the communication itself date 01.07.2020 will not grant him a cause of action to file the present writ petition against the order dated 01.07.2020, without challenging the order of the Director dated 22.02.2020 (referred in the impugned order dated 01.07.2020). It will be deemed that the petitioner has waived his rights to challenge the same. 31. It will be deemed that the petitioner has waived his rights to challenge the same. 31. In view of the reasons which has been assigned above, while scrutinising the veracity of the different writ petitions, which were preferred by the petitioner, it could be said that the petitioner has consecutively filed several writ petitions for the same cause of action and invocation of an equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not permissible and particularly in the light of the fact that the petitioner was conscious of the fact that two writ petitions engaging a consideration for the grant of promotion as it was claimed for was already pending consideration before this Court. The aforesaid contentions stand substantiated in the light of the pronouncements rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2008 (1) SCC 560 , Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others. Para 10 and 16 of the said judgment are extracted hereunder:- “10. Although the prayers made in the four writ applications are apparently different, having gone through the writ applications, it became evident that the core issue in each of the matter centers round recovery of the amount advanced to the appellants by the bank. Evidently, orders passed in different stages of the proceedings as also new proceedings based upon fresh calculation on interest on the principal sum had been in question from time to time. As indicated hereinbefore, even a public interest litigation was filed wherein also Appellant No. 2 was a party. Maybe that validity of Section 35A of the U.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board Act, 1960 was one of the issues raised therein but even the recovery proceeding was the subject matter thereof. 16. A writ remedy is an equitable one. A person approaching a superior court must come with a pair of clean hands. It not only should not suppress any material fact, but also should not take recourse to the legal proceedings over and over again which amounts to abuse of the process of law. In Advocate General, State of Bihar v. M/s. Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries and Another [ (1980) 3 SCC 311 ], this Court was of the opinion that such a repeated filing of writ petitions amounts to criminal contempt." 32. In Advocate General, State of Bihar v. M/s. Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries and Another [ (1980) 3 SCC 311 ], this Court was of the opinion that such a repeated filing of writ petitions amounts to criminal contempt." 32. A Division Bench of Allahabad High Court, in WRIT TAX No. 1492 of 2020, M/s Integrated Tech 9 Labs Private Limited Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others, has held as under:- “In view of the dismissal of the above writ petition the matter with regard to challenge to the order dated 31.1.2018 as has been made in this petition has come to an end. In case we allow the petitioner to challenge the said order in this writ petition it would amount to filing of successive writ petitions for one of the causes of action involved in the earlier writ petition. It is settled law that successive writ petitions for the same cause of action are not maintainable and all questions which could have been taken or ought to have taken and if not decided would be deemed to have been adjudicated or declined." 33. Apart from it, the petitioner is not entitled for any accommodation to be granted by this Court while considering his 6th writ petitions for the same cause of action, for the reason being that he has not approached the Court with clean hands as there had been a consistent concealment of facts and by bringing true and correct facts to the knowledge of the Court when the last writ petition was entertained and it was disposed of directing the competent authority to take into consideration the representation submitted by the petitioner. The said principles that a person who invokes the writ jurisdiction has to approach the Court with clean hands has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment as reported in AIR 1991 SC 1726 , G. Narayanaswamy Reddy (dead) by L.Rs. and another Vs. Government of Karnataka and another, a reference may be had to relevant part of para 2, which is extracted hereunder:- “2. The petitioners were the owners of certain lands which were acquired by the respondents under the provisions of Sections 17 and 19 of the Bangalore Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “the Bangalore Act"). and another Vs. Government of Karnataka and another, a reference may be had to relevant part of para 2, which is extracted hereunder:- “2. The petitioners were the owners of certain lands which were acquired by the respondents under the provisions of Sections 17 and 19 of the Bangalore Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “the Bangalore Act"). Under the provisions of Section 36 of the Bangalore Act, where the acquisitions, otherwise than by agreement, it will be regulated by the provisions, as far they are applicable, of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Land Acquisition Act"). Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, which section was included in the said Act in 1984 as set out hereinafter, very briefly states, provides that the Collector must make his award within two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and that if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for acquisition of the land shall lapse. Under the Explanation to the first proviso to Section 11-A," the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded". It was, inter alia contended by the petitioners that as the awards in these cases has not been made within two years of the notification making the declaration under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the entire acquisition proceedings had lapsed. That contention was repelled along with certain other contentions in the judgment of the High Court which is sought to be impugned before us. The relevant dates which have to be borne in mind in this connection, are as follows: The notification making the declaration under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the lands in question was made on September 20, 1977. On September 20, 1984 Section 11-A which introduced into the Land, Acquisition Act by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, was brought into force. Under the first proviso to Section 11-A it was prescribed that where the said declaration (under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act) has been published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, the award must be made within a period of two years from such commencement. Thus, the award should have been made within two years from September 20, 1984. Thus, the award should have been made within two years from September 20, 1984. On September 11, 1985, the petitioners obtained an interim order from this Court directing status quo with regard to the possession of the lands in question in Special Leave Petition No. 294 of 1985 preferred against the order of the Karnataka High Court dated August 14, 1984, with which we are not directly concerned here. The said Special Leave Petition No.294 of 1985 was dismissed on April 29, 1987. On December 16-17, 1987, two writ petitions were field by the respective petitioners in the Karnataka High Court challenging the acquisition on the ground that the awards were not made within the stipulated time. In these two writ petitions, the Karnataka High Court granted interim stay of further proceedings in respect of the acquisition of the said lands. These petitions were dismissed by a learned Single Judge of that High Court on November 29, 1988. Appeals against the decision of a learned Single Judge were dismissed by the Karnataka High Court on October 6, 1989, by a Division Bench of that High Court. The petitioners preferred these Special Leave Petitions, namely S.L.P. Nos. 823 and 824 of 1990 against the decision of the Division Bench of that High Court, and obtained an interim stay of dispossession therein. Whatever the ultimate effect of the stay orders, in view of the provisions of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, to which we have already referred earlier, it is beyond dispute that the fact of the stay orders was highly material in the determination of these Special Leave Petitions. Curiously enough, there is no reference in the Special Leave Petitions to any to the stay orders and we came to know about these orders only when the respondents appeared in response to the notice and filed their counter affidavit. In our view, the said interim orders have a direct bearing on the question raised and the non-disclosure of the same certainly amounts to suppression of material facts. On this ground alone, the Special Leave Petitions are liable to be rejected. It is well-settled in law that the relief under Article 136 of the Constitution is discretionary and a petitioner who approaches this Court for such relief must come with frank and full disclosure of facts. On this ground alone, the Special Leave Petitions are liable to be rejected. It is well-settled in law that the relief under Article 136 of the Constitution is discretionary and a petitioner who approaches this Court for such relief must come with frank and full disclosure of facts. If he fails to do so and suppresses material facts, his application is liable to be dismissed. We accordingly dismiss the Special Leave Petitions." 34. Yet another judgment, reported in 1996 (6) SCC 620, K.R. Srinivas Vs. R.M. Premchand and others, the Hon'ble Apex Court had dealt with the principles about the implications to be drawn in its para 7, when a person approaches the Court not with clean hands. Para 7 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:- “7. It cannot be forgotten that a writ petitioner who comes to the court for relief in public interest must come not only with clean hands, like any other writ petitioner, but must further come with a clean heart, clean mind and a clean objective. We cannot assume that Dr R.M. Premchand, who at the relevant time was a Research Scholar and part and parcel of the University, did not know the regulations hereunder the answer books are destroyed within six months from the examination under formal orders of the functionaries. We cannot assume that Dr R.M. Premchand did not know about the destruction of the answer books of Srinivas at the time when he moved the High Court in public interest. If this be our impression Dr R.M. Premchand had no locus standi to move the High Court in public interest at that belated point of time. Therefore, we allow the appeal of Srinivas, set aside the order of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 17-12- 1993 in WA No. 53 of 1993 and restore the operative part of the order of the Single Bench of the High Court, added with the ground that Dr R.M. Premchand had no locus standi to move the High Court, in view of the facts and circumstances aforementioned. As a sequel all remarks against Professor K.V. Ramana in the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court not only get expunged but the whole basis on which they rest stands effaced. His appeal too is allowed." 35. In the case of Freudenberg Nok Plant 1 & 2 Workers Union Vs. As a sequel all remarks against Professor K.V. Ramana in the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court not only get expunged but the whole basis on which they rest stands effaced. His appeal too is allowed." 35. In the case of Freudenberg Nok Plant 1 & 2 Workers Union Vs. State of Punjab and others, Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, has held as under:- “At this stage, it may be noticed that while filing the writ petitions, the petitioner is required to make a disclosure in the Index and the relevant para, if such or similar petition is pending or decided. The writ petitioner is also required to disclose the difference in the cause of action, if any, in both the writ petitions, if any. Still further, the writ petitioner shall disclose the reasons why the relief claimed in the subsequent petition could not be claimed or included in the previously instituted petition. These observations/guidelines are being issued because filing of the multiple writ petitions should be avoided. The dockets of the Courts are already over flowing. The filing of the multiple petitions is neither in the interest of justice nor in the interest of Judicial Institution. It results in wastage of valuable time of the Institution to which Bar and Bench are equal participants. This Institution has been setup to make a sincere endeavour to 7 of 8 CWP-9204-2020 (O&M) -8-" In view of the aforesaid reasons also, the writ petition does not deserve to be entertained by this Court. 36. This entire controversy has to be looked into from yet another perspective and the perspective is from the view point that in the writ petition where the direction was issued to decide the representation by an order dated 07.01.2020, the Court has escaped to take note of the fact that the decision on the representation was already taken by the respondent on 03.11.2019, which was not challenged by the petitioner, and in the absence of the said fact, being taken note of the decision rendered on 17.01.2020, disposing the writ petition to decide the representation, it cannot be ruled out that it was an order obtained without bringing the true and correct facts before the Court. Hence, in that eventuality, where the entire facts are not narrated in detail before the Court, and true facts are not placed before the Court, and a direction is issued on 17.01.2020 to decide the representation of the petitioner; that in itself would be an order which has been procured by not bringing the true facts on record before the Court and particularly bringing on record the fact of a decision already taken on 03.11.2019 and 22.02.2020 by the Director, hence, in that eventuality, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner for giving challenge to the impugned order dated 01.07.2020, which is only the communication which was issued by the Additional Director, in compliance of the decision taken by the Director on 22.02.2020, which is not under challenge in the present writ petition, this Court, looking to the chequered history, and particularly, the fact that the two prior writ petitions are still pending consideration, the petitioner cannot be permitted to take the liberty to file successive writ petitions detailed above, by procuring orders to decide the representation and particularly the writ petition, which happens to be the sixth in succession thus this Court is of the opinion that even on the principles of waiver as the petitioner, has not challenged the orders dated 03.11.2019 and 22.02.2020, the present writ petition will not be sustainable, and deserves to be dismissed. As the petitioner has concealed the facts and has mislead the Court in processing order dated 17.01.2020, by filing successive writ petitions by concealing facts the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 37. Hence, this Court declines to exercise its extraordinary equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petition being WPSS No. 723 of 2021, is accordingly dismissed. 38. The writ petitions, being WPSS No. 1351 of 2017 and WPSS No. 2169 of 2018, are directed to be de-linked and are directed to be listed independently, to be decided on its own merits. Let the copy of this judgment be placed on the aforesaid two pending writ petitions. Contempt petition being CLCON No. 305 of 2020, has been decided separately, by an order passed in the contempt itself.