The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Court upheld the principles of res judicata and estoppel, emphasizing the binding nature of earlier orders and the respondents' obligation to comply with them.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 1st respondent pertaining to G.O.D. No.575 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (PR.3) Department dated 30.11.2017 and quash the same as illegal arbitrary and non est in law and consequently direct the 1st respondent to regularise the service of the petitioner as Core faculty in management in the State Institute of Rural Development (SIRD) from the date of initial appointment i.e. 27.9.2007 and grant all other attendant service and monetary benefits within the time stipulated by this Honourable Court.)

The petitioner seeks issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned G.O.Ms.No.575, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj dated 30.11.2017 and to consequently direct the 1st respondent to regulate the service of the petitioner as Core faculty in the management in the State Institute of Rural Development (SIRD) from the date of initial appointment i.e. 27.9.2007 and grant all attendant service and monetary benefits.

2. The facts as set out by the petitioner in the affidavit in support of the Writ Petition are that the petitioner completed her graduation degree in the year 1997 and post graduation degree in 1999. The State Institute of Rural Development (SIRD) published a recruitment notification on 07.01.2007, for which the petitioner applied for the post of Core faculty in management, being possessed of all essential qualifications set out in the notification. The petitioner was appointed and she was called for an interview and subsequently having cleared the interview she was appointed as a Core faculty (Management) on 27.09.2007 on contract basis. Though the petitioner was initially appointed for a period of two years on contract basis her contract was extended from time to time until July 2015. The 3rd respondent granted the petitioner all service benefits on par with the other faculty employed in SIRD. The Executive Committee of the Institute also recommended for regularizing the services of the petitioner. One another person by name Dr.C.Villi was appointed as a Core faculty in (Training skill and methodology), similar to the petitioner, on contract basis. His services were regularized by the State Government. However, the said Dr.C.Villi filed W.P.No.25636 of 2005 to seek regularization of his service from the date of his initial appointment. The said Writ Petition was allowed on 11.02.2011 against which the State preferred W.A.No.2184 of 2011 and the Hon-ble Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 25.04.2012 dismissed the Writ Appeal. Though the State Government preferred an S.L.P. in S.L.P.No.10937 of 2013, the same also came to be dismissed on 08.08.2014. Subsequently, the services of Dr.C.Villi came to be regularized from the date of his initial appointment, together with all consequential monetary benefits. The petitioner seeking the same treatment, filed W.P.No.30605 of 2012 before this Court, pending which the 3rd respondent did not extend the petitioner-s contract and therefore the petitioner filed W.P.No.4884 of 2013, challenging the order of termination. Subsequent to filing of W.P.No.4884 of 2013, the 3rd respondent extended the contract of employment of the petitioner by issuing orders extending her tenure from time to time. Both the Writ Petitions were heard by this Court on 02.06.2017 and this Court disposed of both the Writ Petitions in the following manner.

“11. In the result, the writ petitions are disposed of and the respondents 1 to 3 are directed to forward necessary proposal for regularisation of the services of the petitioner to the 4th respondent in terms of the order dated 11.02.2011 made in WP.No.25636/2005 and the judgment dated 25.04.2012 made in WA.No.2184/2011 [cited supra] to the 4th respondent within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and upon receipt of the same, the 4th