Ram Sajiwan vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 2357 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 34
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15192 of 2020
 

 
Petitioner :- Ram Sajiwan
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel representing the Basic Education Officer.

This petition has been preferred seeking the following reliefs: -

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to allow petitioner to word as Peon in Junior High School Majhgawan, Manda, District Prayagraj peacefully in pursuance of order and Judgment dated 16.8.2018 passed in Writ Petition No.27217/2007.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to pay regular salary on the post of Peon in Junior High School Majhgawan, Manda every month and keep on paying the same as and when it becomes due.

(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to respondents to pay arrears of salary to petitioner forthwith."

The reliefs themselves emanate from a judgment rendered by a learned Judge of the Court on 16 August 2018 on three writ petitions which had challenged the orders dated 01 June and 25 October 2007. Admittedly the petitioner was not a party to those writ petitions. It appears that the appointment of the petitioner was initially cancelled by an order of 27 May 1991. That order was challenged by the petitioner and others by way of Writ A No.17025 of 1991 which came to be allowed on 09 February 2007 with directions being issued to consider the claim of the petitioners there afresh. The order cancelling the appointment of the petitioners was quashed. However pursuant to the liberty granted in terms of the judgment rendered on the aforesaid writ petition, the respondents proceeded to pass fresh orders of 01 June and 25 October 2007 reiterating the earlier position that the appointment of the petitioner and other similarly situated candidates was liable to be cancelled. Pursuant to that order, it is candidly admitted that the petitioner did not work post 2007. It is also admitted that the orders of 01 June and 25 October 2007 were never assailed by the petitioner independently. Those orders in fact are not assailed even in this petition. The undisputed position which thus emerges is that the aforesaid two orders attained finality insofar as the petitioner is concerned. He cannot now turn around and require the respondents to consider his claim based on a judgment rendered in proceedings to which he was not a party. In view of the aforesaid, the reliefs as prayed for cannot be granted.

The writ petition is dismissed.

Order Date :- 17.2.2021

Vivek Kr.