ROSHAN LAL Vs. PUNJAB STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff Roshan Lal whose suit has been dismissed by the courts below. Roshan Lal was appointed as Junior Analyst on the recommendation of the Services Selection Board vide order dated March 21,1978. The seniority list of Junior Analysts as on June 30, 1976 was published. His name was shown at Serial No. 54. In the suit he challenged the seniority and claimed his seniority in between Niranjan Singh and Amar Singh who were shown at Serial Nos. 18 and 19 respectively. He claimed this benefit on the ground that his service from Dec. 27, 1967 to Dec. 18, 1969 was not being counted illegally. The suit was contested by the defendant inter-alia on the ground that his services were terminated with effect from Dec. 15,1967 vide order dated Dec. 22, 1967. Thereafter the plaintiff was given fresh appointment on Dec. 16, 1969 as Junior Analyst. Thus, his seniority was rightly fixed. It was further stated that the plaintiff had filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 657 of 1975 in the High Court claiming seniority on the basis of condonation of break in service for the period Nov. 22, 1967 to Dec. 19, 1969. The said writ petition was dismissed on Oct., 26, 1982. It was held that the seniority list aforesaid was prepared according to law. On the pleadings the f blowing issues were framed :

(2.) Both the Courts held that the order of the High Court dated 26.10.1982 passed in the writ petition was binding on the plaintiff whereby the writ petition was dismissed and in view of the same, no relief to the plaintiff could be given. The principle of res-judicata was attracted to the case in hand.

(3.) After going through the judgments of the Courts below, I find no ground to take a different view. The plaintiff concealed the fact of filing of civil writ petition and its dismissal in the suit. Be that as it may, since the High Court had held the seniority to be in accordance with law, the same point cannot be agitated in the suit under issue No. 1. The said decision operates as res-judicata. This appeal is dismissed having no merit. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.