Uttarakhand High Court
"Laxmi Devi vs State Of Uttarakhand & on 17 November, 2021
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
SL. No Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPSS No.1455 of 2021
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, Advocate, for
the petitioner.
Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Additional CSC,
for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate, for the
respondent.
Mr. B.M. Pingal, Advocate, for the
respondent.
The petitioner has preferred an earlier
Writ Petition being WPSS No.974 of 2021,
"Laxmi Devi Vs. State of Uttarakhand &
others", wherein, the petitioner claiming herself
to be a senior most Lecturer in the Institution of
the private respondent, had claimed, that on an
occurrence of the vacancy on the post of
Principal, she may be appointed as an
officiating Principal, but she was not granted
with the charge of the officiating Principal,
rather it was handed over to the junior
incumbent, to the petitioner by the impugned
order dated 30.03.2021.
The petitioner in the earlier writ petition,
as referred above, challenge the said order. The
coordinate Bench of this Court posed a question
to the petitioner pertaining to the
maintainability of the writ petition, as to
whether the forum of U.P. Public Services
Tribunal is available to the petitioner or not?
Faced with the said question, the petitioner
opted out for a direction to the respondent No.4,
to decide the representation, which was
preferred by the petitioner. The writ petition
was accordingly disposed of with a direction to
the respondent No.4, to decide the
representation of the petitioner dated
30.03.2021, with the following directions:-
7. The writ petition is disposed of
with the directions to respondent
no. 4 to decide the representation
dated 30.03.2021 (Annexure 3 to
the writ petition) filed by the
petitioner within a period of two
months from today. But, in case
the dispute is still not resolved,
even after consideration of the
representation, any writ petition,
on the subject, shall not be
entertained by this Court merely
on the ground that it is in sequel to
the instant writ petition.
Consequent to it, the matter travelled to
the Chief Education Officer, and he had passed
an order on 28.09.2021, but the same has not
been given effect to. The petitioner in the
present writ petition, apart from yet again
challenging the order of 30.03.2021, had sought
a writ of mandamus to hand-over the charge to
the petitioner in pursuance to the order of the
Chief Education Officer dated 28.09.2021.
This Court is afraid to entertain the
present writ petition for the reasons being:-
(1) The bar of the principles of Order 2 Rule
2 of the CPC, will come into play,
because the petitioner in the earlier Writ
Petition has already challenge an order of
30.03.2021, by virtue of which, the
charge of the officiating Principal was
already handed over to the private
respondent. The said relief was not
granted by the writ court by the judgment
dated 03.08.2021. Hence, relief claimed
not granted by the Court it would be
deemed to be denied.
(2) Under the garb of the decision of
28.09.2021, in fact the petitioner has
made an effort to yet again challenge an
order dated 30.03.2021. But being
conscious of the observation made in
paragraph No.7, which would be equally
binding on the petitioner, because it was
she who had solicited the order, the
Court has observed that the decision thus
to be taken on the representation of the
petitioner, no writ petition on the said
subject would be entertained by the
Court. Merely on the ground that it is in
the sequel of the instant writ petition.
In that eventuality, due to the bar
of Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC, as observation
made in paragraph No.7, of the judgment dated
03.08.2021, the writ petition, at this stage, at
the behest of the petitioner for the relief
claimed would not be tenable, the same is
accordingly dismissed.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
17.11.2021
NR/
