The main legal point established in the judgment is that the doctrine of res judicata applies when a writ petition is considered on merits and dismissed, and it continues to bind the parties unless modified or reversed by appeal or other appropriate proceedings.

Mukesh R. Shah,

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 17.04.2017, passed in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8985 of 2008 by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the said petition on the ground that the same is barred by principles of res judicata, the original writ petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.

2. That the original writ petitioner approached this Court by way of Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8985 of 2008 for grant of first Time Bound/Personal promotion to him from the post of Assistant Professor in Civil Engineering to the post of Associate Professor in Civil Engineering etc. However, it was observed and found that for the very reliefs sought in the present writ petition, earlier the very petitioner approached this Court by way of Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3580 of 2002 and by order dated 28.09.2005, the learned Single Judge dismissed the said petition. It was further observed and found that against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3580 of 2002, the writ petitioner preferred the appeal being LPA No.1239 of 2005, which came to be withdrawn by the original writ petitioner. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the subsequent writ petition is barred by principles of res judicata, as the issue, which has been raised in the subsequent writ petition, has already been adjudicated by this Court in its order dated 28.09.2005 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3580 of 2002 and, therefore, by the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the said petition on the ground that the writ petition is barred by principles of res judicata.

2.1. At this stage, it is required to be noted that before the learned Single Judge it was submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that the order passed by this Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3580 of 2002 dated 28.09.2005 was contrary to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, as the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3580 of 2002 in which the writ petitioner prayed for the same relief, which has been sought in the subsequent writ petition, was on merits and the same had attained finality, the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on the ground of writ petition being barred by principles of res judicata. Consequently, the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition.

2.2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition on the ground that it is barred by principles of res judicata, the original writ petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.

3. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties on the issue whether the learned Single Judge is justified in rejecting the writ petition on the ground that the same is barred by principles of res judicata.

4. Sri Vinod Kumar Kanth, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant herein-original writ petitioner has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge has materially erred in dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the same is barred by principles of res judicata. It is further submitted by Sri Kanth, learned Senior Counsel appearing on the appellant that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated the fact that even after 38 years of service, the original writ petitioner did not get any promotion and subsequently he retired on the same post in the year 2002.

4.1. It is submitted that right to be considered for promotion itself is a fundamental right as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajit Singh and others (II) vs. State of Punjab and others, reported in (1999) 7 SCC 209. It is further submitted that once the same is held to be a fundamental right, the principles of res