The principle of constructive res judicata applies to writ petitions, barring subsequent petitions on the same cause of action or relief that was asked for but not granted in previous proceedings.

K. S. SHRIVASTAV, J.

( 1 ) THIS writpetition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of india. The petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ order or direction to the respondents for treating them as in continuous service as Assistant Depot clerks from the dates of their initial promotions with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay ana promotion to next higher posts.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this writ petition lie in a very narrow compass. The petitioners were recruited as Conductors on regular basis with probationery rights on different dates ranging from 1963 to 1968 as shown in annexure A to the affidavit. A gradation, that is seniority lists, of Conductors was prepared on 31 -3 -1977 under Regulation 4 of the A. P. State Road Transport corporation Employees Recruitment regulations, 1964 (in short service regulations of 1964), on 21-4-1980; the 1 st petitioner was promoted as Assistant Depot clerk and the remaining petitioners were promoted in the same post in the years 1979 and 1980 as mentioned in Annexure A to the affidavit. Under Regulation 3 of the Service regulations of 1964, the Post of Assistant depot Clerk was required to be filled only by promotion. On 7-6-1982, a second seniority listwas published in which the Conductors who were junior to the petitioners were placed above them and in view of the new gradation list, the petitioners were reverted from the post of Assistant Depot Clerks to the post of Conductors vide orders passed in proceedingsno. Pl/232 (9)/84-W. G. , dated 26-4-1985. Whereupon the petitioners challenged the impugned order ofreversion in Writ Petition No. 4525/1985 in which they also claimed to refix the seniority of the petitioners in the category of Conductors under Regulation 3 of the Service Regulations of 1964. This writ petition was allowed on 31-8-1987followinga judgmentofthiscourt inwp. No. l72of 1978,dated2-11-1979. In the meantime, the other Conductors who were junior to the petitioners were promoted in the absence of stay of the reversion order dated 26-4-1985. Thereafter, the petitioners were also promoted from time to time to the post of Assistant Depot Clerks. The petitioners alleged that though the seniority of the petitioners has been restored as prayed for, but they were not treated as continuing in the post of Assistant Depot Clerks ignoring the impugned order of reversion and their services have not been regularised. Therefore, they are entitled for a declaration that they should be treated as continuing in the post of Assistant Depot Clerks irrespective of the order of reversion as also for the monetary benefits.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel of the petitioners has fairly conceded before me that the ground, claiming declaration of the impugned order of reversion as illegal, was available to the petitioners at the time of the 1st writ petition No. 4525/1985 and actually they have also claimed the said relief on the ground of arbitrarily refixing the seniority without notice to them, but this Court has disposed of the Writ Petition bearing no. 4525/1985 on 31-8-1987 by passing the following order. "the question raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by a judgment rendered in Writ Petition No. 172/1978 on 2-11-1979. Follow ing the same, the seniority of the petitioners narrated hereunder has to be reckoned from the date oftheir first appointment mentioned against each of their names. "

( 4 ) THEREAFTER, the serial number, the names of the petitioners and the date of their seniority have been shows in the list in the impugned order.

( 5 ) FROM what is stated above, it is crystal clear that although the petitioners had sought the relief of quashing the order of reversion and for consequential benefits also, but in the aforementioned writ petition, the relief of only refixing the seniority was given. This follows that the other reliefs, though claimed, were not granted to the petitioners.

( 6 ) IN the case of Mysore State Road transport Corpora

Click Here to Read the rest of this document