Uma Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.

Heard Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel for the Government of Uttarakhand appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 5 and Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 6, and, with their consent, the Special Appeal is being disposed of.

This Appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 487 of 2018 dated 21. 03.2018.

The appellant had earlier invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the select list dated 27. 12.2017 as regards Serial No. 1 Centre 3, Angan Bari Village Ajeetpur, Block Bhadrabad II, District Haridwar, whereby respondent no. 5 was selected. She also sought a writ in her favour directing respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 to conduct the selection for the Serial No.1 Centre 3, Angan Bari Village Ajeetpur, Block Bhadrabad II, District Haridwar de novo. A tentative select list was prepared by a Committee constituted in this behalf on 27.12.2017, which was published on 29.12.2017. By his order in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 14 of 2018 dated 03.01.2018, the learned Single Judge directed the Committee, headed by the second respondent, to consider the objections / grievances of the appellant by a reasoned and speaking order, after hearing the affected parties, i.e. the petitioner (appellant herein) and the fifth respondent, in accordance with law, within a period of fifteen days from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order. The appellant filed her objections to the tentative list and the appellant's representation was rejected by order dated 22nd January, 2018. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing Writ Petition (S/S) No. 487 of 2018. In the order under Appeal, the learned Single Judge observed that, since the select list dated 27.12.2017 was not subjected to challenge and in as much as the appellant did not seek liberty to file a writ petition afresh, when Writ Petition (S/S) No. 14 of 2018 was disposed of by order dated 03.01.2018, she was not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court.

We must express our inability to agree with the opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge. What was under challenge in the earlier writ petition was the select list dated 27.12.2017, and the appellant was directed to file her objections to the tentative select list, and the Authorities concerned were directed to pass orders thereupon. Consequent thereto, the appellant filed her objections which stood rejected by order dated 22.01.2018. She was, therefore, entitled to invoke jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the order of rejection dated 22.01.2018.

Whether the appellant's challenge to the subsequent order dated 22.01.2018 is valid or not, is required to be examined in the writ petition. The fact, however, remains that the appellant could not have been non-suited on the ground that she did not seek liberty to file a writ petition afresh, when Writ Petition No. (S/S) 14 of 2018 was disposed of by order dated 03.01.2018, since the cause of action, for filing the subsequent writ petition, is distinct from the former. The order under Appeal is, therefore, set aside and Writ Petition (S/S) No. 487 of 2018 is restored to file. The matter is remanded to the learned Single Judge for his consideration afresh and in accordance with law.

Present Special Appeal is disposed of accordingly.