IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a claim may be dismissed on the grounds of estoppel and res judicata if similar grievances have been considered and dismissed in previous litigations.

ORDER :

1. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner is challenging the action on the part of the respondent authorities whereby the services of the petitioner were not absorbed and regularized on the post of General Mazdoor Category-I.

2. Brief facts of the case as mentioned in the petition, are that the petitioner was selected for the training on the post of Electrician/Fitter/Welder etc. in General Mazdoor Category-I by the SECL. Since the petitioner took training in colliery of the SECL under the Apprentice Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) in year 1995, therefore, he is entitled for employment and absorption in SECL. The petitioner along with other candidates initially filed writ petition i.e. WPS No. 1357/2002 and sought direction from the Court to respondent authorities for consideration of their appointment and absorption on the post of General Mazdoor Category-I. Vide order dated 08.11.2005 passed in WPS No 1357/2020, this Court directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for absorption and regularization on the post of General Mazdoor Category-1 immediately after the ban imposed is lifted and further directed to take steps to get the relaxation from ban for appointment of the petitioner on the above stated posts and also held that the petitioner may be entitled to proficiency certificate, if permissible. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent SECL filed a review application i.e. MCC No. 254 of 2005 which was dismissed on 28.04.2006 (Annexure P/6) and thereafter both the orders were challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil Appeal No. 1714/2007) and vide order dated 29.03.2007 (Annexure P/7), the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order dated 08.11.2005 and 28.04.2006 passed by this Court and directed that as and when the vacancy for regular appointment is advertised and everything being equal, preference may be given to the candidates who have been trained by this establishment. If the incumbents have already successfully completed the training, there is no reason to withhold their proficiency certificate. In view of the said direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the management of SECL /Coal India complied with the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chairman, Central Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Jeevan Prasad Tiwari & Others passed on 29/03/2007 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of UP State Road Transport Corporation and Another Vs U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shikshuk Berojgar Sangh 1995 (2) SCC 1 by giving age relaxation in the recruitment. In the advertisement itself, the respondent authorities categorically mentioned that the apprentice/ candidates would be entitled for age relaxation to the extent of the period for which the petitioners/ candidates have undergone apprentice training. Despite the relaxation granted to the candidates/apprentice, they did not qualify for the selection on the post of General Mazdoor Category-I as they were found overage and as such, they did not qualify for the selection on the post of General Mazdoor Category- I as per direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others case and some of apprentice, who were granted age relaxation to the extent of the period for which the they have undergone apprentice training they were found to be eligible. Thereafter, the petitioner again approached before this Court and filed writ petition i.e. WPS No. 38 of 2009 (Annexure P/8) seeking relief to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent for appointment on the post of General Mazdoor Category-I in the SECL strictly in accordance with directive, observation and guidance as issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said writ petition vide order dated 09.04.2009 (Annexure P/8) was dismissed by this Court. Against the said order, the petitioner approached before the Division Bench of this Court by filing writ appeal i.e. W.A. No. 139/2009 (Annexure P/9) and the sam