Devi Prasad Vishwakarma vs State of U.P. and others

V.K. Shukla, J

In the present case petitioner had been functioning as ad hoc Principal of the institution. Advertisement for the post of Principal has been issued wherein this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20245 of 2002 passed order of status quo. Said writ petition was finally decided by this Court on 16.10.2003. Against said judgment dated 16.10.2003 Special Leave to Appeal was preferred before Hon''ble Apex Court and said Special Leave to Appeal was finally decided on 16.05.2008 setting aside the judgement of this Court and thereafter result of the institution in question has been declared. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.

Sri Indra Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to contend that against the order passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20245 of 2002 filed by petitioner no Special Appeal has been filed, as such panel in question cannot be enforced, Order passed by Hon''ble Apex Court has got no impact, as such recommendation made is bad.

Countering said submission Sri R.P. Dubey Advocate, contended that issued which has been sought to be raised has already been answered by this Court, as such no interference be made in view of the judgment in the case of R.P. Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and others (Special Appeal No. 680 of 2008 decided on 05.09.2008.

At this juncture judgement passed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.P. Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and others (Special Appeal No. 680 of 2008) is being looked into:

"We have heard Shri D.K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the appellant, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents no.1, 2 and 3, Sri R.K. Ojha learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.4 and Sri R.P.Dubey learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.6.

The appellant is working as ad hoc Principal in Sri B.M.T. Inter College, Atta, District Jalaun. Advertisement no.1 of 2000 was issued by the Commission, respondent no.6 for making selection of regular Principals. The Commission has selected the respondent no.5 on the post of the Principal in the college in which the petitioner/appellant was working as ad hoc Principal. Large number of writ petitions were filed challenging the advertisement no.1 of 2000 issued by the respondent no.6. The writ petitions were dismissed by a Single Judge and Special Appeals was allowed by Division Bench. Some writ petition like that of the petitioner directly came up before the Division Bench as the matter was being heard by a division bench in special appeal. The writ petition of the petitioner was also allowed. In large number of cases Special Leave Petitions were filed before the Apex Court and the judgment given by the Division Bench was set aside holding that the advertisement did not suffer from any defect and consequently set aside the order passed by quashed by the Division Bench. Therefore, the respondent no.5 was entitled to be appointed as Principal as he was duly selected by the Commission.

Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that it is true that in large number of Special Leave Petitions advertisement was held to be valid by the Apex Court. But in the case of the appellant, no Special Leave Petition was filed before the Apex Court, therefore, the judgment in the case of the petitioner/appellant rendered in the writ petition had become final.

We are not inclined to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. Once the advertisement was held to be valid in the matter of selection of the Principal, even if Special Leave Petition was not filed in the case of the petitioner/appellant, the judgment given by the Apex Court would also be binding on the appellant. Once the Apex Court has held the advertisement to be valid, it is not open to this Court to again examine the validity of the advertisement.

For the aforesaid reason, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed summarily."

Consequently, as issue raised is covered by aforementioned judgment present writ petition is dismissed in view of the judgment quoted above.