Shri Ranjit Singh vs Union Public Service Commission
2010 Latest Caselaw 3760 Del

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                           Date of Judgment : 12.8.2010

+                        RSA No.93/1988

SHRI RANJIT SINGH                                ...........Appellant
              Through:          None.

                   Versus

UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ..........Respondent
             Through: Mr. Naresh Kaushik & Ms. Anita
                      Kalkal, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
        see the judgment?

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?               Yes

     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
                                                             Yes

INDERMEET KAUR, J.(Oral)

1.     None has appeared for the appellant in spite of the matter

having been called.         Court notice has been served on the

appellant. The matter is on board since 10th August, 2010.

2.     This second appeal has been directed against the judgment

dated 8.8.1988.     The plaintiff Ranjit Singh had filed a suit for

declaration and a relief of injunction. The facts alleged are that

the plaintiff appeared in the Assistant Grade Examination 1981.

His roll number was 27106.        On 3.10.1981, he appeared in the

English Part-II in the afternoon session.    Plaintiff completed the

answers in 40 minutes prior to the prescribed period and answer

sheet was submitted to the invigilator.     On 30.11.1981, plaintiff

received a letter from the defendant /UPSC cancelling candidature

of the plaintiff for the said examination and debarring him from

appearing in any further examination for the next ten years.       This

order was questioned by the plaintiff by the aforenoted suit; his
RSA No.93/1988                                               Page 1 of 4
 contention was that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the

plaintiff; his case was that no show cause notice as alleged had

been issued to him. He sought a personal hearing. Plaintiff had

also filed a writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed in

limine and not on merits.

3.    The primary defence of the defendant was that the suit was

barred by res judicata as the matter in controversy has already

been adjudicated upon in Civil Writ Petition No.372 of 1986 filed

by the plaintiff which had been decided on 27.4.1984.

4.    Trial Judge while disposing of issue no.1 had held this issue

in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff. It was held

that in view of the judgment of the High Court rendered in the

aforenoted writ petition which was an order on the merits of the

petition, the suit of the plaintiff is barred by res judicata.

5.    The finding of the Trial Judge was endorsed in the impugned

judgment dated 8.8.1988. It was reiterated that the orders dated

27.4.1984 passed in the writ petition were matters substantially in

issue that the subsequent suit which had been filed by the

petitioner and this matter already having been finally heard and

decided by the court hearing the writ petition, the suit was barred

under Section 11 of the CPC. Appeal was dismissed.

6.    In this second appeal a substantial question of law has been

formulated on 15.11.1988 which reads as follows:

      Whether the suit is barred by resjudicata or principles analogous
      thereto in view of the order dated 27.4.84 in C.W. 1132/84
      Before dealing with this submission, it is necessary to

extract the order dated 27.4.1984 which had been proved in that

suit proceeding as Ex. PW-1/E which inter alia reads as follows:

      "The only contention is that petitioner has not been given

RSA No.93/1988                                                     Page 2 of 4
         opportunity under Rule 12 of the relevant Rules to show cause
        against the alleged charge of using unfair means during the
        examination. According to the petitioner he did not receive the
        notice sent by the Commission though it is not denied that the
        notice was received by his parents. This is too far fetched a story
        to accept. Dismissed."
7.      The present suit is a suit for declaration and consequential

relief. The prayers in the suit find mention on page no.10 of the

plaint and are reproduced as follows:

"i) declare that impugned order dated 30.11.1982 is illegal and void-ab-initio.

        ii) also declare that the subsequent order of the UPSC dated

        24.1.1984, 19.11.1985 and 24.4.1986 are also illegal and void-ab-

        initio.

        iii)   issue   decree   of   permanent       injunction    restraining    the

        respondent from giving effect to the impugned order dated

        30.11.1982 and the subsequent order dated 24.1.1984,19.11.85

        and 24.4.1986.

        iv)       Issue a mandatory direction to the respondent to allow the

        petitioner to take further examination conducted by UPSC and to

        declare the plaintiff's result for the Asstt. Grade Examination,

        1981 by directing that the impugned orders are non-effective and

        non-existence.

        v) allow the cost of the suit, viz pass such order/orders, as deemed

        fit in the interest of justice.

8.      On 30.11.1982, the plaintiff had received a letter from the

defendant cancelling his candidature and debarring him from

appearing in any examination for ten years. The representations

of the plaintiff were rejected vide communication dated 24.1.1984

reiterated on 19.11.1985 and lastly on 24.4.1986. The contention

of the plaintiff all along as is evident from the body of the plaint

was that he has not used any unfair means; he was possessed of

the requisite qualification; personal hearing had been illegally

denied to him.          No opportunity of hearing had been granted to
RSA No.93/1988                                                                    Page 3 of 4
 him.   This is violative of principle of natural justice, equity and

good conscience.

9.     The    order     dated   27.4.1984       has   reflected      all    these

contentions of the petitioner.           It has categorically recorded the

grievance of the petitioner which was that he never received any

notice before his candidature was cancelled; he was not given an

opportunity of representation to show cause about the alleged

charge of using unfair means attributed to him. These contentions

were rejected in the aforenoted order dated 27.4.1984. These are

the same issues which had been sought to be agitated before the

Court below and this is evident from the body of the plaint as also

the prayers made in the suit.

10.    The doctrine of res judicata as contained in Section 11 of the

CPC has been engrafted as a public policy to give finality to a

litigation. Parties are not permitted to agitate and re-agitate the

same issues over and over again. There is no quarrel to the

proposition      that   principle   of    res   judicata   applies     to    writ

proceedings.      The matters in issue before the writ Court i.e. the

opportunity of fair hearing not having been given to the petitioner,

notice not having been served upon him, had been rejected.                  Both

the Court below had rightly held that Section 11 of the CPC bars

the said suit.      The legal proposition is accordingly answered

against the appellant.

11.    There is no merit in the appeal. It is dismissed.



                                                 INDERMEET KAUR, J.

AUGUST 12, 2010 nandan