Harish Chand vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

By means of instant petition, the petitioner seeks direction to resettle the date of his appointment as well as the direction of this Court passed on 13.09.2017, in WPSS No. 1765 of 2016, Harish Chand Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others (“the first petition”).

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

In the first petition, the Court while allowing the writ petition observed:-

“29 ............................The State must examined the certificate of the petitioner and all the qualifications and if they are in order, grant him appointment order forthwith. It is made clear that the appointment of the petitioner shall also be from the same date as is given to those candidates who have been selected in the selection process. It is further made clear that the petitioner shall get the salary from the date he joins an institution and shall not be entitled for back-wages.

In the light of the discussions and observations made above, writ petition stands allowed.

Thereafter, the petitioner filed another petition bearing Writ Petition (S/S) No. 404 of 2022, Harish Chandra Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others (“the second petition”) for fixation of the salary from the date when other candidates participated in the selection process and given appointment. The second petition was dismissed on 21.11.2023. The Court then observed “The prayer for monetary benefit and fixation of the salary appears to be fallacious and misconstrued and the same cannot be granted to the petitioner. However, no other prayer has been made by the petitioner regarding the pre-fixation of his date of appointment; therefore, no relief can be granted to him for the same.”

Thereafter instant petition has been filed.

In essence, what the petitioner seeks is, enforcement of this Court’s judgment dated 13.09.2017 passed in the first petition. In order to get the fruit of the order passed in this writ petition, another petition may not be entertained. There are other provisions for enforcing the orders of this Court. Therefore, this Court is of the view that instant petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

The writ petition is dismissed.