Orders related to employment become final; subsequent judgments for different employees do not reopen settled cases.

ORDER

1. The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief:

“8A. The Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside (a) order dated 13.06.2003 (Annexure J herein) passed by the Additional Secretary, Education Department, Government of Gujarat; (b) both orders dated 30.05.2001 (Annexure F Collectively herein) passed by the District Education Officer; (c) Order dated 23.04.2001 (Annexure E herein) passed by the Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal and (d) the order dated 06.12.1999 (Annexure D herein) passed by the District Education Officer.

B. The Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ. Order or directions for approving the appointment of the petitioner from the date of their appointment i.e 21.06.1999 so as to enable the petitioners to obtain consequential benefit of their service for the period from 21.06.1999 to 31.08.2001.”

2. Thus, as the prayer clause suggests that the petitioners are seeking quashing and setting aside of the orders dated 13.06.2003 passed by the Additional Secretary, Education Department, 30.05.2001 passed by the District Education Officer and the order dated 23.04.2001 passed by the Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal (Tribunal) and the order dated 06.12.1999 passed by the District Education Officer after a delay of almost 22 years.

3. The entire case of the petitioners hinges on subsequent judgement dated 06.05.2013 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.6126 of 2001, in the case of some other employee.

4. It is not in dispute that the petitioners had approached the Tribunal by filing Application Nos.269 and 270 of 2000 challenging the objection raised by the District Education Officer dated 06.12.1999, wherein the D.E.O. has refused to accord approval to the appointments of the petitioners and also seeking declaration that they are entitled to receive salaries in the pay- scale of Rs.5000-8000 with effect from 21.06.1999 under D.P.S. Scheme.

5. By the judgement and order dated 23.04.2001, which is impugned in the present petition, the Tribunal has rejected the applications filed by the petitioners. The Tribunal has refused to interfere with the order by observing that due to the ban imposed by the Government on recruitment, the officers of the department have not accorded approval to the appointments for the purpose of grant.

6. The petitioners challenged the said order by filing a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.6852 of 2001 and by the order dated 28.11.2001, this Court disposed of the writ petition by reserving liberty in favour of the school to file a representation before the State authority. Liberty was reserved in favour of the School to challenge adverse order that may be passed on the representation. The judgement and order passed by the Tribunal was not quashed, however direction was issued to the DEO, Ahmedabad to sanction salary of the petitioners and pay arrears.

7. Thereafter, it appears that the respondent- School made a representation dated 18.12.2001 to the Secretary, Education Department, asking for approval for placing the petitioners in the Direct Pay Scheme for the period from 21.06.1999 to 31.08.2001.

8. By the order dated 13.06.2003, the representation dated 18.12.2001 of the School was also rejected. Neither the School challenged the said decision nor the petitioners.

9. Subsequently, it appears that in case of some another employee of the same School, who filed Special Civil Application No.6126 of 2001, this Court, by the judgement dated 06.05.2013 allowed the said writ petition partly and directed the respondents to accord approval to the ap