Uttarakhand High Court
Sabit Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 19 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
JUSTICE SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE
19th SEPTEMBER, 2022
Special Appeal No.319 of 2022
Sabit Kumar ......Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ...... Respondents
Presence: -
Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for
the State.
JUDGMENT: (Per Shri Vipin Sanghi, Chief Justice)
The present appeal is directed against the
judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in
WPSS No.1329 of 2020 dated 17.08.2022. The learned
Single Judge has not found merit in the said petition
and dismissed the same.
2. The case of the appellant is that he was
appointed as Assistant Teacher on 10.08.2004 by the
Manager of Janta Junior High School, Harchandpur-
Nijagpur, Post Gurukul Narson, District Haridwar.
Subsequently, that school was taken in grant-in-aid
category. He filed this petition to seek regularization.
3. Due to filing of the said petition, his services
were discontinued. He approached the Court by
preferring WPSS No.749 of 2014 seeking regularization
of his services, that relief was denied with the dismissal
of the writ-petition on 29.02.2016. The appellant's
special appeal No.83 of 2016 was also dismissed by the
Division Bench on 05.05.2016. However, he was
granted liberty to raise his grievance with regard to his
not being allotted work after he raised the claim for
regularization.
4. He once again preferred second petition being
WPSS No.392 of 2018 which he withdrew with liberty to
file representation.
5. The writ-petition preferred by him in which
the impugned order was passed is the third round of
litigation initiated by the appellant. The learned Single
Judge has dismissed the writ-petition while observing as
follows:-
"10. One of the basic fundamental of justice
dispensation system is finality of the judgment
delivered in a dispute. The history as narrated
hereinabove makes it abundantly clear that in the
first petition, it was the grievance of the petitioner
that he should be allowed to work as an Assistant
Teacher; his services should be regularized; he
should not be removed without showing any cause
or without affording any opportunity of hearing.
Interesting the relief (iv) sought in the first petition
was direction for the respondents to decide the
representation that may be made by the petitioner.
Fact remains that the first petition filed by the
petitioner was rejected by this Court on
29.02.2016. The special appeal preferred against it
was also rejected. Court, of course gave a liberty
to the petitioner, but not to agitate the same issue.
The liberty was given with regard to the injury,
which has been allegedly suffered in the form of
not been allowed to work. Para 10 of the rejoinder
of the petitioner, filed in the first petition has been
quoted in para 4 of the judgment of the special
2
appeal. In it, the petitioner had stated that, in fact,
he was paid salary in the school. He worked in the
school.
11. It is true that in the second petition the Court
gave a liberty to the petitioner to make a
representation, but the judgment dated
07.01.2020, passed in the second petition cannot
override the judgment passed in the first petition
and importantly, the judgment passed on
05.05.2016 in the special appeal. The issue has
been decided finally by this Court. The judgment
dated 05.05.2016, passed in the Special Appeal
No.83 of 2016, has attained finality. The issue
cannot be agitated further. Therefore, this Court
does not see any reason to reconsider the
controversy. Accordingly, the petition deserves to
be dismissed".
6. It appears that the appellant has repeatedly
been attempting his luck to seek regularization even
though he has served only for the limited period
between 17.08.2004 to 24.05.2005 as an alternate
arrangement. The appointment of the appellant was not
made in a public process by issuing a public
advertisement.
7. We, therefore, do not find any reason to
interfere in the impugned order.
8. Accordingly, the present special appeal is
dismissed.
________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
________________________
RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE, J.
Dated: 19th September, 2022
SS/RB
