JITENDRA JOSHI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Arvind Vashisth, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Paresh Tripathi, the learned Brief Holder for the State/respondents.

(2.) Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition is, in fact, the second writ petition for the same cause of action. The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition No. 1684 (S/S) of 2006, Jitendra Joshi Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others challenging the advertisement and the consequential selection on the post of Sub Inspector which was dismissed by a judgment dated 23rd July, 2007. Against this judgment, the petitioner preferred a special appeal filing various documents and desiring the Appellate Court to consider the said documents. The Appellate Court was not inclined to consider the additional documents being brought on record since it was of the opinion that the said material was not available before the learned Single Judge. The Appellate Court, however, disposed of the appeal by an order dated 14/12/2009, directing the petitioner to make an appropriate representation before the respondents. It is alleged that the representation filed by the petitioner was rejected, against which, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) In my opinion, the second writ petition is not maintainable as held in Sarguja Transport Service Vs. State of Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior and others, AIR 1987 SC 88 and Ashok Kumar and other Vs. Delhi Development Authority, (1994) 6 SCC 97. In Khacher Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, AIR 1995 ALL 338, the Division Bench held that the successive writ petition was not maintainable. In Avinash Nagra Vs. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and others, (1997) 2 SCC 534, the Supreme Court held that the second writ petition was not maintainable and the principles of constructive res judicata would apply. Similarly, in State of U.P. and others Vs. State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow and another, [(2003) 2 UPLBEC 1123], the Division Bench held that the second petition for the same relief was not permissible as the petitioner did not seek liberty to agitate the issue afresh and that the principles of Order 23 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. would be applicable.