Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 257 (UTT)

Sabit Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

2022-08-17

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2022
JUDGMENT : Ravindra Maithani, J. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:- (i) Issue a writ, order or direction quashing the impugned order dated 09/10-06-2020 passed by the respondent no.-3 (contained as Annexure No.12, to this writ petition. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondent no.3 to decide the representation of the petitioner a fresh after considering the evidence submitting by the petitioner as well as record of the school, within stipulated time fixed by this Hon’ble court. (iii) Issue any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case be passed in favour of the petitioner. (iv) Cost of the petition be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 10.08.2004, by the Manager of Janta Junior High School, Harchandpur Nijagpur Post Gurukul Narson, District Haridwar (for short, “the school”). He worked there. Subsequently, the school was taken in grant-in-aid category. The petitioner continued teaching in the school. He filed a writ petition for his regularization. As soon as the Manager of the Committee learnt about the writ petition, having been filed by the petitioner, he stopped the petitioner from teaching. In an earlier Writ Petition (S/S) No.749 of 2014, Sabit Kumar vs. State of Uttarakhand and others (for short, “the first petition”) the petitioner sought the following reliefs:- (i) Issue an appropriate order, writ or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularized the services of the petitioner similar to the regularized made of other junior teachers working in the same School in the interest of justice to the petitioner. (ii) Issue an appropriate order, writ or direction in the nature mandamus commanding the respondents to not to remove the petitioner from his service arbitrary without showing any reason and without any notice to the petitioner and hence it is prayed from using appropriate prior of his removal from service as per principle of natural justice. (iii) Issue an appropriate order, writ or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue to work in his service till the pendency of this writ petition. (iii) Issue an appropriate order, writ or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue to work in his service till the pendency of this writ petition. (iv) Issue an appropriate order, or direction or writ commanding the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner by an speaking order. (v) Issue any other order or any further directions which this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case to mould the relief and render justice to the petitioner. (vi) Award the cost of the present writ petition to the petitioner, and for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall every pray as in duty bound” 4. The first petition was dismissed on 29.02.2016. The Court has observed as hereunder:- “6. As far as claim of the petitioner for regularization is concerned that has not been established by the petitioner before this Court as no provision of law has been shown by the petitioner whereby his services could be regularized. Petitioner has also relied upon the Government Order dated 30.12.2013 where a teacher who has continuously worked for five years inter alia as a teacher his services were liable to be regularized whether he is working on contractual basis or daily wage capacity. The petitioner, however, has not been able to show before this Court that he was ever engaged in the said school in any capacity as no salary slip or even honorarium has been shown to this Court. Therefore, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. 7. The writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.” 5. The judgment dated 29.02.2016, passed in the first petition was challenged by the petitioner in Special Appeal No.83 of 2016, Sabit Kumar vs. State of Uttarakhand, which was also dismissed on 05.05.2016 but, the Court gave a liberty to the petitioner with regard to the injury, which had been allegedly suffered in the form of not been allowed to work. In para 12 of the judgment of the special appeal the Court had observed as hereunder:- “12. In para 12 of the judgment of the special appeal the Court had observed as hereunder:- “12. The upshot of the discussion is that, we feel that we do not see any justification for permitting the appellant to lay store by the 2013 Rules but, at the same time, in regard to the injury which has been allegedly suffered in the form of not being allowed to work, though there is an order or appointment in his favour, he may workout his remedy before any other competent forum. We make it clear that the observation made by the learned single judge in the impugned judgment will not stand in the way of any competent body in law taking decision in accordance with law, if the same is approached by the appellant diligently. Necessarily if any order is to be passed by the affecting the committee of Management/private respondent, it can be done only after affording opportunity of hearing to it.” 6. It appears that thereafter, a complaint was made by the petitioner with regard to his grievances. But, not satisfied with the action taken by the department, the petitioner further filed Writ Petition (S/S) No.392 of 2018, Sabit Kumar vs. State of Uttarakhand and others (for short, “the second petition”), but, the second petition was withdrawn by the petitioner and a liberty was given to the petitioner to make a representation. The petitioner made a representation, which was rejected by the impugned order dated 10.06.2022. Hence, the petition. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner worked as an Assistant Teacher in the school for a long. When he sought regularization and filed a writ petition in this Court, the Committee of Management did not allow him to work. There are evidences that the petitioner was teaching in the school. After decision in the special appeal, when the petitioner made a complaint it was enquired into and the Inquiry Officer concluded that the petitioner did work in the school but, his appointment process was not ever notified in any newspaper. The record of the inquiry has been enclosed as Annexure No.7 in the writ petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the procedure for appointment of Assistant Teacher in the school was followed in the case of the petitioner. The notice was published in the notice board and it is valid requirement. The record of the inquiry has been enclosed as Annexure No.7 in the writ petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the procedure for appointment of Assistant Teacher in the school was followed in the case of the petitioner. The notice was published in the notice board and it is valid requirement. Reference has been made to a judgment of this Court in the case of Ramesh Pal Singh S/o Shri Attar Singh vs. Raja Mahendra Pratap and others, Writ Petition No.7186 of 2001 (S/S). In the case of Ramesh Pal Singh (supra), the Court has taken note of the fact that advertisement in that case was issued and notified on the notice board. 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that the dispute has already been settled; no documents have been produced by the petitioner which may entitled him for the relief; his appointment was not as per the prevailing Rules. 10. One of the basic fundamental of justice dispensation system is finality of the judgment delivered in a dispute. The history as narrated hereinabove makes it abundantly clear that in the first petition, it was the grievance of the petitioner that he should be allowed to work as an Assistant Teacher; his services should be regularized; he should not be removed without showing any cause or without affording any opportunity of hearing. Interesting the relief (iv) sought in the first petition was direction for the respondents to decide the representation that may be made by the petitioner. Fact remains that the first petition filed by the petitioner was rejected by this Court on 29.02.2016. The special appeal preferred against it was also rejected. Court, of course gave a liberty to the petitioner, but not to agitate the same issue. The liberty was given with regard to the injury, which has been allegedly suffered in the form of not been allowed to work. Para 10 of the rejoinder of the petitioner, filed in the first petition has been quoted in para 4 of the judgment of the special appeal. In it, the petitioner had stated that, in fact, he was paid salary in the school. He worked in the school. 11. Para 10 of the rejoinder of the petitioner, filed in the first petition has been quoted in para 4 of the judgment of the special appeal. In it, the petitioner had stated that, in fact, he was paid salary in the school. He worked in the school. 11. It is true that in the second petition the Court gave a liberty to the petitioner to make a representation, but the judgment dated 07.01.2020, passed in the second petition cannot override the judgment passed in the first petition and importantly, the judgment passed on 05.05.2016 in the special appeal. The issue has been decided finally by this Court. The judgment dated 05.05.2016, passed in the Special Appeal No.83 of 2016, has attained finality. The issue cannot be agitated further. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to reconsider the controversy. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 12. The petition is dismissed.