Uttarakhand High Court
Dr. Vidya Sagar Singh vs G.B. Pant University Of Agriculture And ... on 16 May, 2019
Bench: Ramesh Ranganathan, R.C. Khulbe
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 188 OF 2019
Dr. Vidya Sagar Singh .....Petitioner.
Vs.
G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology and others.
...Respondents
Sri S.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Shubhang Dobhal, learned
counsel for the respondent-University.
Dated: 16th May, 2019
Coram: Hon'ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.
Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.
Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. (Oral) Heard Sri S.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-University.
2. The petitioner has again invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 26.04.2019 seeking recovery of Rs. 1,75,000/- with interest; a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to re- examine the petitioner's case and withdraw the order dated 26.04.2019, which had already been withdrawn by the order of the Government of Rajasthan dated 21.06.2007; a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to keep in abeyance the recovery order dated 26.04.2019 of Rs. 1,75,000/- with interest passed by the second respondent; and for a writ of mandamus directing the 4th respondent to release the due amount of the petitioner, as has been asked by the Finance Secretary of the Government of Rajasthan through his letter dated 04.01.2012.
3. The petitioner had earlier invoked the jurisdiction of this Court filing Writ Petition (S/B) No. 352 of 2014 wherein the validity of the order passed by the respondent-University dated 28.08.2014, directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/-, was questioned.
24. In its order, in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 352 of 2014 dated 24.10.2018, the Division Bench observed that it was an admitted fact that, when the petitioner had proceeded on study leave, he had executed a bond with the State of Rajasthan; he was granted study leave for two years initially and, thereafter, it was extended; the petitioner had joined the service of the respondent-University on 20.02.2007; the petitioner was a temporary employee of the Government of Rajasthan; he had placed reliance upon the letter dated 21.06.2007; and, according to the petitioner, the stand of the State of Rajasthan was that the petitioner was not required to execute the bond.
5. After going through the letter dated 21.06.2007, the Division Bench observed that the said letter spoke of only employees who were confirmed, and the petitioner was a temporary employee at the time when he executed the bond; the case of the petitioner was regulated under Rule 121-A of the Rajasthan Service Rules; the duration of the Ph.D. course was two years, and the petitioner had undertaken to serve the State of Rajasthan for five years; and it was, in these circumstances, that the impugned orders had been issued to the petitioner at the behest of the State of Rajasthan. Finding no merit in the writ petition, the Division Bench dismissed the same.
6. Thereafter, the second respondent issued Office Order dated 26.04.2019 referring to the letter dated 06.02.2014 received from the Deputy Secretary of the Rajasthan Government, Department of Veterinary, Jaipur, for recovery of the amount of the bond of Rs. 1,75,000/- with interest, executed at the time of study leave granted to the petitioner to secure the Ph.D. Degree; the petitioner was, presently, posted as an Assistant Professor, Department of Veterinary Parasitology, College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences; and, with the approval granted by the Vice Chancellor on 15.08.2014, letter dated 28.08.2014 was issued directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 1,75,000/- in favour of the Veterinary Department of the Government of Rajasthan; otherwise, the Dean, Veterinary Sciences was directed to deduct the said amount in 3 installments from the salary of the petitioner; against the Office Letter No. 28.08.2014, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition (S/B) No. 352 of 2014, which was dismissed by this Court on 24.10.2018; and, as per the approval letter dated 02.04.2019, compliance of the letter dated 28.08.2014 was directed to be ensured.
7. The petitioner has again invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, by way of the present writ petition, questioning the action of the second respondent in seeking to recover the said amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- from him.
8. Sri S.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the Division Bench had erred in holding that the petitioner was a temporary employee, and that the Rules applicable to temporary employees would govern; since the petitioner is a permanent employee, Rule 110(1) would alone apply in which event, the petitioner need not pay Rs. 1,75,000/- for not complying with the bond; the cause of action, for filing the present writ petition, is the letter dated 26.04.2019, and is different from the cause of action which fell for consideration before the Division Bench in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 352 of 2014; though the petitioner has filed an application, seeking review of the order passed by the Division Bench in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 352 of 2014 dated 24.10.2018, the impugned order dated 26.04.2019 makes no reference to the petitioner having invoked the review jurisdiction of this Court; and, consequently, the petitioner is entitled to again invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9. We must express our inability to agree with the aforesaid submissions of Sri S.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. A plain reading of the proceedings dated 26.04.2019 would show that it is only the letter dated 28.08.2014, which is now sought to be enforced, consequent on Writ Petition (S/B) No. 352 of 2014 being dismissed by this Court on 24.10.2018. Writ Petition (S/B) No. 352 of 2014 was filed by the petitioner herein questioning the letter 4 dated 28.08.2014, whereby the petitioner was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/-.
10. The petitioner's contention that a new cause of action has arisen as a result of the Office Order dated 26.04.2019 does not merit acceptance and, since it is the very same cause of action based on the order dated 28.08.2014 whereby Rs. 1,75,000/- was sought to be recovered from the petitioner, on which the present writ petition is based, it is difficult to accept that the petitioner is again entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, in effect, questioning the very same order dated 28.08.2014, whereby a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- was sought to be recovered from the petitioner, and a challenge to which was rejected by the earlier Division Bench in its order in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 352 of 2014 dated 24.10.2018. We are satisfied, therefore, that no new cause of action has arisen; and the petitioner is, therefore, not justified in again invoking the jurisdiction of this Court.
11. A bare perusal of the order passed by the Division Bench in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 352 of 2104 dated 24.10.2018 clearly shows that, while dismissing the writ petition, liberty was not granted to the petitioner to again invoke the jurisdiction of this Court by way of a separate writ petition for the very same cause of action. Since no liberty was granted to the petitioner in the order passed by the earlier Division Bench, in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 352 of 2014 dated 24.10.2018, the petitioner is not entitled to file a fresh writ petition for the very same cause of action.
12. The judgment of a competent Court is binding inter-parties and cannot be re-agitated in collateral proceedings. An order or judgment of a Court/Tribunal, even if erroneous, is binding inter-parties. The binding character of judgments, of Courts of competent jurisdiction, is in essence a part of the rule of law on which administration of justice is founded. (The Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers' Association and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others :
(1990) 2 SCC 715; U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. State of U.P. and Anr. : (2005) 1 SCC 444). Matters in controversy, 5 in writ proceedings under Article 226, decided after full contest, after affording fair opportunity to the parties to prove their case, by a Court competent to decide it and which proceedings have attained finality, is binding inter-parties. (Gulabchand Chhotalal Parikh vs. State of Bombay (Now Gujarat) : AIR 1965 SC 1153; State of Punjab vs. Bua Das Kaushal : AIR 1971 SC 1676). Once a matter, which was the subject-matter of a lis, stood determined by a competent Court, no party can thereafter be permitted to reopen it in a subsequent litigation. (Swamy Atmananda and Ors. vs. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam and Ors. : AIR 2005 SC 2392; Ishwar Dutt vs. Land Acquisition Collector and Anr. : (2005) 7 SCC 190). Issues which have been concluded inter-parties cannot be raised again in proceedings inter-parties. (State of Haryana vs. State of Punjab and Anr. : (2004) 12 SCC 673). In view of the earlier order passed by the Division Bench, in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 352 of 2014 dated 24.10.2016, a judgment inter-parties which is binding on the petitioner, it would be wholly inappropriate for us to entertain a fresh writ petition for the very same cause of action.
13. With regards the submission, urged on behalf of the petitioner, that the impugned order makes no reference to the review application being filed by the petitioner, it must be borne in mind that mere filing of a review application matters little, unless an order is passed therein interdicting the respondents from recovering the said sum of Rs. 1,75,000/-. It is not even contended before us that any such order was passed in the review petition disabling the respondents from recovering the said amount. Failure to mention the fact, that the petitioner herein had filed a review petition, in the order dated 26.04.2019 is of no consequence.
14. With regards the petitioner's contention that the order of the Division Bench in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 352 of 2019 dated 24.10.2018 is erroneous, such a contention cannot be examined in collateral proceedings, and the petitioner's remedy, against the order passed by the Division Bench in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 352 of 2014 dated 24.10.2018, is either to question the same in an appeal 6 before the Supreme Court, or to seek review thereof, and not to file a writ petition afresh. Since the petitioner has, on his own showing, filed a review petition, we see no reason to entertain this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
15. Suffice it to observe that the review application filed by the petitioner shall be examined on its merits uninfluenced by the dismissal of this writ petition.
(R.C. Khulbe, J.) (Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.)
16.05.2019 16.05.2019
Rathour