Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 4769 UK

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


      26.11.2021
                                                   WPSS No. 1495 of 2021
                                                   Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mrs. Anjali Bhargava, Addl. CSC, for the State.

As against the rejection of her claim, whereby the District Education Officer (Primary Education), had denied the benefit, which was solicited by the petitioner before the said Authority, by an order dated 16.08.2018, the petitioner had earlier preferred a writ petition, being Writ Petition (S/S) No. 280 of 2021, Sunita Kukreti Vs. State of Uttarakhand, wherein the principal relief, which was sought for by the petitioner, was putting a challenge to the order 16.08.2018, however, for the reasons best known to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he had himself not pressed the writ petition on merits and rather he has carved out an exception on his own by making prayer, before the Court, that he may be permitted to file a fresh representation on the same issue, which already stood rejected by the order dated 16.08.2018. The coordinate Bench of this Court had expressed the solace and permitted him to do so vide its judgment on 05.02.2021.

After the said order, the petitioner represented before the respondents and by virtue of the decision dated 28.07.2021, the petitioner had been relegated to prefer a representation before the competent authority for redressal of her grievances. In fact, under the garb of rejection of the second representation, which was permitted to be filed by the petitioner by the judgment of this Court, in fact, he has yet again given a challenge to the earlier order dated 16.08.2018, which was already the subject matter of the earlier Writ Petition No. 280 of 2021, which was not pressed by the petitioner on merits.

In that eventuality, I am of the view that the consequential order dated 28.07.2021, cannot be taken as to be a escape goat for the petitioner now in order to enable him to re-agitate her case against the principal order of rejection dated 16.08.2018, which was the earlier relief, not pressed by him in the earlier writ petition.

The consecutive preference of representation and decision given on the same and filing of a consecutive writ petition, would be barred by principles made applicable to the writ proceedings under Order 2 Rule 2, of the CPC, the writ petition would not lie, as the principal relief, which has been sought for in the present writ petition was already a subject matter of considering in the earlier writ petition, which stood denied due to the petitioner opting not to press the same.

Hence, the writ petition is dismissed with the liberty left open for the petitioner to resort to any other legal and appropriate recourse available to him under law as against the principal order passed on 05.02.2021 in the earlier writ petition.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 26.11.2021 Mahinder/