IMPORTANT POINT
The doctrine of res judicata bars re-litigation of issues that have been conclusively determined, ensuring judicial finality and preventing abuse of court processes.

JUDGMENT :

G. Narendar, J.

1. We have heard the party-in-person and the learned Government Pleader.

2. The case facts shock us. The issue was considered by the Division Bench in the year 2006 in Writ Appeal No.1403 of 2003, which came to be disposed of on 22.08.2006 and which order of the Division Bench thereafter came to be affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court by its order, dated 21.04.2007 whereby, the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to reject the Civil Appeal Nos.121 & 123 of 2007. We failed to understand as to how the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.1831 of 2008 and the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.516 of 2012 exercised jurisdiction after the "issue of eligibility" had attained finality at the hands of the Coordinate Bench vide judgment dated 22.08.2006 and thereafter also affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court by its judgment dated 21.04.2007.

3. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench could not have sat in judgment over the finding rendered in by the earlier Coordinate Bench being a bench of equal strength. The subsequent Division Bench could not have exercised appellate jurisdiction over the orders of the Coordinate bench dated 22.08.2006. More so, in the light of the fact that the said judgment of the Division Bench had received its seal of approval at the hands of the Hon'ble Apex Court on 21.04.2007, whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to reject the Civil Appeal No.121 & 123 of 2007 preferred by the petitioner in WP.No.1831 of 2008.

4. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the issue in law. That apart, the issue of the eligibility of the appellant having been determined by the Division Bench on 22.08.2006 and the said finding having received the seal of approval at the hands of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the year 2007 in proceedings instituted by the very petitioner in W.P.No.1831 of 2008, the subsequent Benches of Coordinate strength could not have sat in appeal and rendered a finding contrary to the one recorded by the earlier Benches of equal strength and judicial propriety does not permit the same. That apart, we find that the Coordinate Bench has also not looked into the fact that the appellant herein has been appointed as a Librarian not on U.G.C. but on State scale.

5. Be that as it may, the issue of the petitioner's eligibility to be appointed to the post, having attained finality, the same could not have been looked into again by the subsequent Benches and the said proceedings are squarely hit by the principles of res judicata. It is to address such repetitive rounds of litigation and in order to put an end to endless litigation, the principles of res judicata came to be codified as a public policy. Yet we faced a new to the case which squarely demonstrates the lack of scruples with litigants, who tend to litigate over and over again even in respect of issues that have attained finality.

6. It is not the case of the parties, that the instant appellant has practiced a fraud. That apart the subsequent Coordinate Bench i.e. the Division Bench, which subsequently heard the matter ought to have shut the doors on the petitioner therein in view of the issue having attained finality at the hands of this Court in the earlier rounds of litigation and at the hands of the Hon'ble Apex Court.

7. The law with regard to the applicability of res judicata and issue estoppel has been analysed and settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka and another Vs. All India Manufacturers Organization and others, (2006) 4 SCC 683. The Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe in paragraph Nos.32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 48 which reads as under :

Res judicata

32. Res judicata is a doctrine based on the larger public interest and is founded on two grounds: one being the maxim nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa (no one ought to be twice vexed for one and the same cause [P. Ramanatha Aiyer: Advanced Law Lexicon, (Vol.