Back
Rules State Bound by Findings After Withdrawing Special Appeal, Orders Librarian Appointments
A Division Bench of the has delivered a significant ruling on the of judicial findings, holding that the cannot re-agitate grounds it had previously raised and lost, after withdrawing its special appeal against an earlier judgment.
The Long Road to Justice
The dispute traces back to when the issued Advertisement No.22-Examination/ for filling 69 Librarian posts under the Director of Technical Education, with a pay band of ₹5,200–20,200 and grade pay of ₹2,800. The written exam was held on , followed by interviews in , and the final result was declared on .
However, during the selection process, the framed the 2019 Regulations, upgrading the Librarian post to Group-B with enhanced qualifications requiring a Master's Degree and UGC National Eligibility Test. The subsequently framed the , and began insisting that the selection be abandoned.
Earlier Victory and the State's Response
The petitioners approached the High Court in Writ-A No.5390 of 2022, which was allowed on with a direction to grant appointments within a month. The Court noted that the State had neither withdrawn its requisition nor published any corrigendum as required under , and held that the 2021 Rules, being prospective, did not govern the ongoing selection.
The State preferred Special Appeal No.65 of 2023 but subsequently got it on . Instead of complying with the judgment, the State passed an order on rejecting the petitioners' claim on the very same grounds that had already been rejected by the Court. When the petitioners moved fresh writ petitions, the Single Judge dismissed them, holding that the earlier judgment had granted liberty to the State to take an independent view.
The Core Legal Question
Before the Division Bench, the central issue was whether the State, having withdrawn its appeal, was estopped from re-agitating the grounds already adjudicated against it. The Bench, comprising Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Sudhanshu Chauhan , framed the question squarely: whether, on the principle of , the State could once again contest the petitioners' selection.
The Court found that all the grounds urged by the State—including the applicability of the 2021 Rules, the alleged impossibility of completing the selection, and the absence of —were precisely the arguments considered and rejected earlier.
Principles Reaffirmed
The Bench drew upon several landmark precedents. Citing Satyadhyan Ghoshal v. Deorajin Debi (1960), it reiterated that once a matter is finally decided—whether by dismissal of an appeal or by withdrawal—neither party may canvass it again. The Court also applied Forward Construction Company v. Prabhat Mandal (1986), which explains that under , any matter which might and ought to have been raised is deemed to have been in issue.
Relying on Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam v. Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh (2019), the Court held that the State's withdrawal of its appeal amounted to , creating an against raising the same pleas again.
"It Amounts to Sitting in Appeal"
The Bench was critical of both the State's order and the Single Judge's affirmation of it:
"An authority cannot sit in appeal or review the order passed by a competent Court. Perusal of the impugned order dated 23.03.2024 reveals that the said order amounts to against the judgement of learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.5390 of 2022 which jurisdiction the authorities do not have."
On the argument that the State had been granted liberty to take "another view," the Court clarified that the liberty was conditional—it had to be exercised
"keeping in mind the observations made"
in the earlier judgment:
"Till the judgement of this Court dated 05.12.2022 in Writ-A No.5390 of 2022 is set aside, findings of the said judgement were binding upon the authorities."
The Verdict
The Division Bench set aside the Single Judge's judgment dated and allowed both Special Appeals. It directed the State to grant appointment to the petitioners on the post of Librarian in the pay band of ₹5,200–20,200 with grade pay of ₹2,800 within one month from production of a certified copy of the order. The second appeal, involving candidates identically situated, was also allowed with the same relief.
This judgment reinforces a crucial safeguard: litigants—including governments—cannot selectively challenge a judgment and then resurrect rejected arguments in subsequent proceedings. Withdrawal of an appeal signals acceptance, and of judicial decisions must be respected.
