Back
2022 Supreme(UK) 228
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Sabit Kumar - Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others - Respondents
Writ Petition No.1329 of 2020 (S/S)
Decided On : 17-08-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Tapan Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Narain Dutt
The finality of judgments and the inability to agitate the same issue further once a judgment has attained finality.
Headnote:
Regularization - Assistant Teacher - Government Order dated 30.12.2013 - Writ Petition No.7186 of 2001 (S/S) - The court dismissed the petition seeking regularization as the petitioner failed to establish his claim and did not provide evidence of continuous work as a teacher. The judgment in the first petition and the special appeal attained finality, and the issue could not be agitated further. The petition was dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought regularization as an Assistant Teacher in a school where he had been working. Previous petitions on the same issue were dismissed, and the special appeal was also rejected. The petitioner was given a liberty to make a representation, which was later rejected, leading to the current petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to establish his claim for regularization and did not provide evidence of continuous work as a teacher. The previous judgments had attained finality, and the issue could not be agitated further. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.
Issues: Regularization of services, continuous work as a teacher, finality of previous judgments, and the right to agitate the same issue.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner failed to provide evidence to support his claim for regularization and continuous work as a teacher. The previous judgments had attained finality, and the issue could not be agitated further.
Final Decision: The petition seeking regularization as an Assistant Teacher was dismissed by the court.
JUDGMENT :
Ravindra Maithani, J.
By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:-
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction quashing the impugned order dated 09/10-06-2020 passed by the respondent no.-3 (contained as Annexure No.12, to this writ petition.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondent no.3 to decide the representation of the petitioner a fresh after considering the evidence submitting by the petitioner as well as record of the school, within stipulated time fixed by this Hon’ble court.
(iii) Issue any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case be passed in favour of the petitioner.
(iv) Cost of the petition be awarded in favour of the petitioner.”
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 10.08.2004, by the Manager of Janta Junior High School, Harchandpur Nijagpur Post Gurukul Narson, District Haridwar (for short, “the school”). He worked there. Subsequently, the school was taken in grant-in-aid category. The petitioner continued teaching in the school. He filed a writ petition for his regularization. As soon as the Manager of the Committee learnt about the writ petition, having been filed by the petitioner, he stopped the petitioner from teaching. In an earlier Writ Petition (S/S) No.749 of 2014, Sabit Kumar vs. State of Uttarakhand and others (for short, “the first petition”) the petitioner sought the following reliefs:-
(i) Issue an appropriate order, writ or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularized the services of the petitioner similar to the regularized made of other junior teachers working in the same School in the interest of justice to the petitioner.
(ii) Issue an appropriate order, writ or direction in the nature mandamus commanding the respondents to not to remove the petitioner from his service arbitrary without showing any reason and without any notice to the petitioner and hence it is prayed from using appropriate prior of his removal from service as per principle of natural justice.
(iii) Issue an appropriate order, writ or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue to work in his service till the pendency of this writ petition.
(iv) Issue an appropriate order, or direction or writ commanding the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner by an speaking order.
(v) Issue any other order or any further directions which this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case to mould the relief and render justice to the petitioner.
(vi) Award the cost of the present writ petition to the petitioner, and for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall every pray as in duty bound”
4. The first petition was dismissed on 29.02.2016. The Court has observed as hereunder:-
“6. As far as claim of the petitioner for regularization is concerned that has not been established by the petitioner before this Court as no provision of law has been shown by the petitioner whereby his services could be regularized. Petitioner has also relied upon the Government Order dated 30.12.2013 where a teacher who has continuously worked for five years inter alia as a teacher his services were liable to be regularized whether he is working on contractual basis or daily wage capacity. The petitioner, however, has not been able to show before this Court that he was ever engaged in the said school in any capacity as no salary slip or even honorarium has been shown to this Court. Therefore, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted.
7. The writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.”
5. The judgment dated 29.02.2016, passed in the first petition was challenged by the petitioner in Special Appeal No.83 of 2016, Sabit Kumar vs. State of Uttarak
