State of Rajasthan and Others vs Sayaid Sabir Ali

These two appeals are directed against the common order dated 25.08.2005 as passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP Nos. 337/2001 and 1459/2001 respectively. It is noticed that by the common order dated 25.08.2005, the learned Single Judge of this Court considered the same grievance of the same writ petitioner (the respondent herein) in three writ petitions concerning three selection processes in three different Districts.

The grievance of the writ petitioner in these writ petitions had been that his case was not being considered for appointment to the post of Urdu Teacher Grade-III on the ground that he was not possessing the requisite qualification of Urdu. The learned Single Judge, with reference to the previous decision of this Court, held that the writ petitioner fulfilled the requisite qualification; and his case was required to be considered by the appellants.

These being two appeals filed only against the orders as passed in relation to CWP Nos. 337/2001 and 1459/2001, the learned counsel for the appellant was queried, if any appeal has been filed in relation to the common order pertaining to CWP No. 1010/2001. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that with difficulty, the record pertaining to these appeals could be reconstituted in his office; and it does not appear that an appeal in relation to the said writ petition (CWP No. 1010/2001) has been filed. The learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner also submitted that he has received notices in relation to these two appeals only.

Upon enquiry by the Court Masters, the Office has reported that as per the computer entries, no intra-court appeal has been filed in relation to CWP No. 1010/2001.

Though the learned counsel for the appellant has attempted to argue against the order impugned with the submissions that the same does not stand in accord with the law finally declared in such matters but we are afraid, so far the present matters are concerned, such submissions cannot be entertained for the basic reason that the very same order concerning the very same parties appear to have attained finality so far it relates to CWP No. 1010/2001.

Looking to the subject matter of the writ petitions leading to these appeals, if the writ petitioner has been held duly qualified for the similar nature selection process qua one District; and such a declaration has attained finality for having not been put to challenge, in our view, no contradictory orders can be passed in these intra-court appeals.

Only for the reason aforesaid, we do not feel inclined to interfere in the order impugned; and these appeals are required to be dismissed. Accordingly and in view of the above, these appeals stand dismissed. No costs.