Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/1598/2025 on 25 September, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:8666
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
WPSS/1598/2025
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
1. Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel
for the petitioner.
2. Mr. N.K. Papnoi, learned Standing
Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
3. Petitioner claims to be a dependant
of Uttarakhand Rajya Andolankari. He
participated in a selection for the post of
Sub-Inspector in Uttarakhand Police, held
pursuant to advertisement dated
29.08.2014. According to him, he is one
of the candidates, out of total six, who
qualified against the vacancies reserved
for dependant for Uttarakhand Rajya
Andolankari. However, appointment was
not given to him because of an interim
order passed by Division Bench of this
Court in WPPIL No. 67 of 2011.
4. Petitioner has sought the following
relief in this writ petition:-
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature
of mandamus directing the respondents to
open the sealed envelope pertaining to the
result of selection of Petitioner against the
post of Sub-Inspector Civil Police pursuant
to advertisement dated 29.08.2014 and
consequently give him benefit of section 5
of the Uttarakhand Act No. 11 of 2023.
5. Petitioner contends that since State
Legislature has now enacted a law known
as "The Uttarakhand Reservation in
Government Service for the Identified
Andolankari of Uttarakhand State
Movement of their Dependants Act, 2023
2025:UHC:8666
(in short 'Uttarakhand Act No. 11 of
2024'), which provides for reservation to
identified Andolankaries of Uttarakhand
Rajya Andolan and their dependants,
therefore, petitioner has a right to be
appointed.
6. Section 5 of the said Act is
extracted below:-
"The selections/appointments of the State
andolankari made to different Government
services/posts as per the government order
issued on 11th of August, 2004 or thereafter,
shall be deemed to be valid
selections/appointments under this Act."
7. Learned State Counsel points out
that petitioner filed WPSS No. 107 of
2025, seeking the following reliefs:-
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature
of mandamus directing the respondents to
consider claim of Petitioner for appointment
on the post of Sub Inspector Civil Police
pursuant to advertisement dated 29.08.2014
and 31.01.2024 and selection of Petitioner
against available vacancies under
Uttarakhand Andolankari quota in compliance
of section 5 of the Uttarakhand Act No. 11 of
2023.
8. A coordinate Bench dismissed the
said writ petition, vide order dated
15.05.2025. Para 12 and 13 of the said
judgment are extracted below:-
"12. A bare reading of it makes it clear that
these two provisions are basically to save
such selections and appointments, which had
already been made. The petitioner has never
been appointed, never been selected.
Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim
appointment based on application of the
provisions of the 2023 Act.
13. Therefore, this Court does not see any
reason to make any interference. Accordingly,
2025:UHC:8666
the writ petition deserves to be dismissed."
9. Learned State Counsel further
submits that petitioner thereafter
preferred Special Appeal No. 138 of
2025, which was dismissed by Division
Bench, vide judgment dated 19.08.2025.
Thus, he submits that this subsequent
writ petition, for similar relief, is not
maintainable as petitioner has sought the
identical relief, but by modulating the
prayer.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that in the earlier writ petition,
there was no prayer for opening of seal
cover.
11. Learned State Counsel submits that
petitioner could have prayed for the said
relief in the earlier writ petition, merely
because he omitted to seek that relief,
another writ petition for similar relief
cannot be entertained and the Principle
of constructive res judicata is attracted
to the subsequent writ petition for similar
relief.
12. This Court finds substance in the
submission made by learned State
Counsel. After dismissal of earlier writ
petition and unconditional withdrawal of
special appeal filed thereagainst,
subsequent writ petition for similar relief
would not be maintainable and would be
barred by principle of res judicata and
Order 2 Rule 2 CPC.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J)
25.09.2025
Aswal
NITI RAJ SINGH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d13
ASWAL
69512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F461
0C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL
Date: 2025.09.25 06:05:44 -07'00'
2025:UHC:8666
