GH HASSAN ZAZ Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE post of liason officer came to be thrown open for competition way back in the year 1986 in terms of the advertisement notice dated 26 -7 -1986. The selection process culminated in the same year by appointment of the respondent No. 7 vides order no. REC/Board/42 dated 7 -10 -1986. The appointment was challenged by the petitioner for the first time in the year 1992 by medium of SWP 1170/92. During the pendency of the writ petition the representation of the respondent No. 7 evoked response of the Board of Governors -respondent No. 2 herein. It was deliberated upon and a decision came to be taken which was approved by the Chief Minister on 12 -5 -2000. The decision envisages to the following effect: a) Status of EDP cell at REC is made permanent with effect from 4 -7 -1989 and allowed to be a part and parcel of T and P Department. As such, the posts of EDR cell will have Substantive status. b) An out of court settlement is arrived at with Mr. Ghulam Hassan Zaz, as he has challenged Ms. Thusoos appointment as liaison officer. Mr Zaz could be such adjusted against the lien vacancy of liaison officer in the lower pay scale of Rs. 5500 -9000 in the first instance. c) Action as at (a) & (b) would pave a way for confirmation of Ms. A. Thusoo as liaison officer. d) Deputation of Ms. Thusoo to GCET is confirmed. e) Upgradation/promotion of Ms. Thusoo as an Asstt. Professor (which is equivalent to the post of project Leader of EDP cell at REC) at GCET is confirmed. She infact, holds the post of Assistant professor in T&P Department of GCET presently under orders of the Honâ„¢ble court. f) By virtue of actions as at (c), (d) & (e) Ms. Thusoo would be entitled to service benefits of both REC and GCET.

(2.) THE decision of the Board reproduced therein above makes it clear that the process employed in consideration of the representation of the respondent No. 7 got a relief to the petitioner as well entitling him to his adjustment against the lien vacancy of the liaison officer. Relying upon the decision of the Board the petitioner sought disposal of the writ petition by a direction to the respondents to implement the above referred decision and the writ court acceding to his prayer decided the writ petition on 16 -10 -2000 in the following terms: ...Let the respondents implement their own decision within the period mentioned above... They would be at liberty to seek extension of time. These writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.

(3.) BEING fully contented with the judgment, the petitioner has made a legal effort to force the respondents to accelerate the process of implementation of the decision of the Board by contempt petition which is subjudice as on date. This fact is averred by the petitioner unequivocally in Para (9) of the writ petition. How amazing it looks that on the one hand the petitioner aims at compelling obedience of the judgment and on the other he reiterates the challenge through the present writ petition against the order of appointment of respondent No. 7 notwithstanding the fact that the said order of appointment stands ratified by this court by having directed the respondents to implement the decision of the Board which entitles the respondents No. 7 to confirmation on the post of Assistant Professor and as a corollary to regularisation on the post of liaison officer. Can petitioner maintain this writ petition? To draw correct conclusion it has to be borne in mind that SWP No. 1172/92 was filed on the same averments and with similar reliefs as are urged in this writ petition. When the said writ petition received consideration by the court the writ petitioner instead of seeking the reliefs prayed for therein sought a relief quite distinct from those prayed in the writ petition. Consequently a necessity arose for moulding the relief. The relief was moulded by the writ court at the instance of the petitioner enabling him to derive whatever advantage he could. Accordingly SWP 1170/92 was adjudicated upon by the court which decision has to bind the petitioner and the respondents unless it is varied, modified or set aside by appeal or by any other proceedings permissible under law. Suffice it to say that a subsequent writ petition between the same parties on the same facts seeking same relief as urged in the former writ petition is not maintainable on the basis of general rule of res judicata which has to be adhered to so that finality is attached to the judicial pronouncements handed down by the courts of competent jurisdiction. Viewed thus, the decision dated 16 -10 -2000 passed in SWP 1170/92 works as a bar against the maintainability of this writ petition, therefore liable to be dismissed.