Delhi High Court
Jaipal Singh vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 9 May, 2005
Author: B Patel
Bench: B Patel, S K Kaul
JUDGMENT
B.C. Patel, C.J.
1. The present appeal is preferred against the order made by the learned single Judge in WP(C) No. 6571/2002 on 7.2.2005.
2. The appellant had applied to the respondent Corporation in pursuance to an advertisement issued on 16.7.1996 for which the last date to submit the forms was on 31.7.1996. The appellant applied as an OBC candidate. He had obtained a certificate from the native village in Uttar Pradesh, but the requirement was for the requisite certificate to be issued by the authorities in Delhi. The appellant applied for the issuance of the certificate to the competent authority, but the certificate was not issued.
3. The respondent authorities had relaxed the norms inasmuch as in case the applications had been made to the competent authority for issuance of the certificate before 31.7.1996, such candidates were being considered so long as they obtained certificates. Appointments were made from time to time in 1997-98, but not of the appellant in view of the absence of the certificate.
4. The appellant filed a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 7465/2000 seeking appointment as a Primary Teacher, but the said writ petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge vide order dated 12.12.2000 on the ground of inordinate delay in approaching the Court since appointments were made between the period July 1997 to July 1998. The appellant accepted the said judgment and did not carry the challenge any further.
5. The appellant claims that the certificate was ultimately issued by the SDM on 15.5.2001 when WP(C) No. 6571/2002 was filed which has been dismissed by the learned single Judge by the impugned order dated 7.2.2005. The reason recorded in the impugned order, inter alia, is that in view of the orders passed on 12.12.2000 in the earlier writ petition, the mere subsequent issuance of the caste certificate cannot entitle the appellant to agitate the claim to be accommodated in the subsequent panel. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the principles of res judicata should not apply as there was dismissal only on ground of delay in respect of the writ petition by the order dated 12.12.2000.
6. In our considered view, once the earlier writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed on ground of delay, the appellant has no right to file the subsequent writ petition, and it can hardly be accepted that in the subsequent proceedings it can be stated that the appellant has approached the Court within a reasonable period of time. If the appellant was aggrieved by the first order dated 12.12.2000, it was for the appellant to have agitated the matter further. The appellant failed to do the same. Mere issuance of the caste certificate subsequently in the year 2001 would not give rise to a cause of action in favor of the appellant, since the appellant is claiming the relief of appointment as a Teacher, which was the relief in the earlier proceedings and had been declined on the ground of inordinate delay especially as the panel had been operated in the years 1997 and 1998 and the appellant had failed to make any grievance by filing legal proceedings for either appointment or for issuance of the certificate within a reasonable period of time.
7. The plea of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no requirement for such a certificate in view of the judgment of the learned single Judge in CW No. 4821/1996 and other connected petitions decided on 10.3.1998 cannot also be accepted since that judgment was in existence prior to the filing of the earlier writ petition and either the plea was not taken or the learned counsel was unable to persuade the learned single Judge while hearing of the earlier writ petition to grant any relief. The said judgment was accepted by the appellant.
8. We find no merit in the appeal. Dismissed.
