WPSS/748/2021
2021 Latest Caselaw 2299 UK

             Office Notes, reports,
             orders or proceedings
SL.
      Date     or directions and                    COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
             Registrar's order with
                  Signatures

                                      WPSS No.748 of 2021
                                      Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

(Via Video Conferencing) Mr. Anil Anthwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mrs. Anjali Bhargawa, Addl. C.S.C. for the State of Uttarakhand.

The petitioner to the present writ petition has given a challenge to the impugned order of 08.08.2017, by virtue of which his claim for regularization as a Forester has been rejected by respondent no.2. Apart from the fact that writ petition has been preferred at a very highly belated stage, but other facts which are apparent from the pleadings of the petitioner raised in the writ petition, itself particularly as contained in para 14 and 15, that for an identical relief he has earlier approached the writ court by filing a writ petition being Writ Petition No.932 of 2009 Lalit Harbola vs. State of Uttarakhand and others claiming regularization on the post of Forester and that writ petition was disposed of by the Coordinate Bench on 29.08.2011, (this judgment of the High Court is not appended with the writ petition). After passing of this order of 29.08.2011 in para 15, the petitioner has admittedly pleaded that his representation in pursuance to the direction of judgment dated 29.08.2011, was rejected on 22.02.2011.

This order of rejection of the claim of the petitioner of regularization on the post of Forester on 22.02.2011, has not been put to challenge and he filed the second writ petition being Writ Petition No.515 of 2017 (S/S) Lalit Mohan Harbola vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, which was disposed of by the Coordinate Bench of this Court by the judgment of 30.03.2017, yet again directing to decide the representation, which has been rejected by the impugned order of 08.08.2017.

In this jugglery of judicial proceedings, which had been resorted to by the petitioner, disentitles him to claim an equitable relief which are available under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He cannot file a successive writ petitions, for the same cause of action without challenging the earlier rejection order, to which he has submitted and accepted it's propriety.

In that view of the matter, apart from the fact that this writ petition while giving a belated challenge to the order of 08.07.2017, would not be sustainable as per my view. Hence, this writ petition lacks merits and the same is dismissed.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 08.07.2021 Arti