RAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, questioning the validity of decision dated 23.12.2008, whereby U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board has declared select panel of the incumbents, who have been selected as Principal of different Intermediate Colleges. Brief background of the case is that in the district of Barabanki, there is an institution known as Noor Mohd. Inter College, Jaidpur, District Barabanki, the affairs of which are run and managed as per provisions contained under U.P. Act No. 2 of 1921. Said institution is on grant-in-aid list of the State Government and as such the provisions of U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 are fully applicable. Appointment to the post of Principal, Lecturer and L.T. Grade teachers is done as per the provisions as contained under U.P. Act No. V of 1982. In the said institution permanent Principal retired on 30.06.2002 and the petitioner had been officiating in the office of the Principal with effect from 01.07.2002, and his signatures were also attested. In order to fill up the vacancy in the office of the Principal substantively, in the institution in question together with other institutions, advertisement No.1 of 2002 had been issued. Pursuant to aforesaid advertisement selection proceedings were undertaken, and in the meantime, petitioner as well as other similarly situated incumbents filed writ petitions before this Court, questioning the validity of said selection proceedings and in the said bunch of writ petitions, leading one being writ petition No.30321 of 2002, interim order was passed on 30.07.2002, directing the parties to maintain status-quo qua the services of writ petitioners. Prior to the said date, interview had taken place for making selection and appointment on the post of Principals. Said writ petition No.30321 of 2002 along with bunch of writ petitions was dismissed. Against the order of dismissal, Special Appeals were filed, and they were allowed on 23.09.2003. Against the appellate judgment, Special Leave Petitions were instituted before Hon'ble Apex Court. Said Special Leave Petitions were decided on 16.05.2008 and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Special Appeals was reversed. Thereafter matter has been finalised and result has been declared. At this juncture, present writ petition has been filed. Supplementary affidavit has also been filed by contending that the petitioner is also entitled to be called for interview like other candidates. Sri Bheem Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended with vehemence that the petitioner being senior most teacher of the institution is entitled to be called for interview, as such selection proceedings, wherein petitioner has not been called for interview, are vitiated and liable to be quashed. Countering the said submission, Sri A.K. Yadav, Advocate, representing the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, on the other hand contended that the matter has been finalised upto Hon'ble Apex Court, and present writ petition is barred by principle of constructive res judicata, as such all these pleas cannot be permitted to be raised in the second innings. After respective arguments have been advanced, factual position which emerges in the present case is that the post of Principal at Noor Mohd Inter College had fallen vacant on account attaining the age of superannuation of permanent incumbent on 30.06.2002. In order to fill up the vacancy in the office of the Principal substantively in the institution in question together with other institutions, advertisement No.1 of 2002 had been issued. Pursuant to aforesaid advertisement selection proceedings were undertaken, and in the meantime, petitioner as well as other similarly situated incumbents filed writ petitions before this Court questioning the validity of said selection proceedings and in the said bunch of writ petitions, leading one being writ petition No.30321 of 2002, interim order was passed on 30.07.2002, directing the parties to maintain status-quo qua the services of writ petitioners. Prior to the said date interview had taken place for making selection and appointment on the post of Principals. Said writ petition No.30321 of 2002 along with bunch of writ petitions was dismissed. Against the order of dismissal, Special Appeals were filed, and they were allowed on 23.09.2003. Against the appellate judgment, Special Leave Petitions were instituted before Hon'ble Apex Court. Said Special Leave Petitions were decided on 16.05.2008 and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Special Appeals was reversed. Thereafter matter has been finalised and result has been declared. At this juncture, petitioner has come up before this Court, claiming that he, being the senior most teacher of the College in question, was entitled to be called for interview. Right of senior most teacher to be called for interview can not be disputed, inasmuch as said provision has been incorporated under Rule 11 (2) (b) of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Rules, 1998. The question which is to be answered is that interview had already taken place and petitioner had filed writ petition questioning the validity of said selection proceedings, but therein no such plea was at all taken up, and writ petition was dismissed. Special Appeal preferred against the said judgment was allowed. The judgment of Special Appeal bench had been subject matter of challenge before Hon'ble Apex Court by way of Special Leave Petition, which was allowed and the Division Bench judgment of this Court was reversed. Thereafter result has been declared, at this moment, petitioner is filing present writ petition challenging the validity of the same very selection proceedings. Interview had already taken place when petitioner filed writ petition, no one had prevented the petitioner from questioning the validity of the selection on this ground also at the point of time when writ petition had been taken up. Even in special appeal this ground was not taken up. Once entire matter has been settled up even up to Hon'ble Apex Court, then after declaration of result, petitioner cannot be permitted to raise such plea, which he could have very well raised, in this background present writ petition is clearly barred by the principle of constructive res judicata. Petitioner has tried to contend that various candidates have been called for interview. The averments mentioned by the petitioner are totally vague and evasive. The fact of the matter is that once petitioner had contested the matter up to Hon'ble Apex Court and lost the matter, then second round of litigation cannot be permitted, and pleas which could have been raised,cannot be permitted to be raised again and again. Consequently, writ petition fails the same is dismissed.