Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
N Ranjan Kumar vs Nvs on 23 March, 2026
1 O.A.No. 260/000620 of 2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/000620 of 2025
Reserved on 18.03.2026 Pronounced on 23.03.2026
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
N.Ranjan Kumar, aged about 58 years,
Son of Late Basudev Nayak, resident of
At-Khandipal, PO. Pritipur, PS.
Alakund, Dist. Jajpur, PIN-755013.
......Applicant
Versus
1. Union of India represented through its
Secretary, Ministry of Education
(Department of School Education and
Literacy), At- Shastri Bhawan, New
Delhi -110001.
2. Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya
Samiti, At-B-15, Institutional Area,
Sector-62, NOIDA, Dist. Gouitam Budh
Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, Pin-201307.
3. Deputy Commissioner, Navodaya
Vidyalaya Samit, Hyderabad Region,
At-Nallagandla Road, Gopanpally, Dist.
Rangareddy, Hyderabad, Telegana,
Pin-500046.
4. Principal, Jawahar Navodaya
Vidyalaya, At/Po. Hothpped, Dist.
Yadgiri, Karnataka, Pin-585287.
5. Deputy Commissioner, Navodaya
Vidyalaya Samiti, Bhopal Region, MIG-
172/2A, Saket Nagar, AIIMS Road,
Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal-462024.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr.H.P.Rath, Counsel
For the respondents : Mr.G.R.Verma, Counsel
Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera
Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera,
o=Central Administrative Tribunal
Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL,
Behera [email protected]
Date: 2026.03.23 16:17:18 +05'30'
2 O.A.No. 260/000620 of 2025
O R D E R
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
The Applicant, Shri N.Ranjan Kumar, stating to be aged 58 years, has filed this Original Application u/s.19 of the A.T.Act, 1985 stating, inter alia, that on 27.07.1992 he was appointed as Store Keeper temporarily on a consolidated pay of Rs.1000/- for a period of 179 days. However, after facing process of selection, offer of appointment was issued to him as Store Keeper on 11.11.1992 which was withdrawn in letter dated 01.02.1993 on the instruction of Dy. Director, NVS that no appointment shall be made without the approval of Regional Office of NVS vide letter dated 27.01.1993. Driver selected was appointed. Civil Writ Petition No. 2703/1993 was filed before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court which was dismissed on 24.08.1995. Since no decision was taken on getting the approval of the Regional Office, he filed OJC No. 16265/1998 before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa seeking quashing of the letter of withdrawal dated 01.02.1993 which was disposed of on 10.09.2004 by directing the DD, NVS, Hyderabad Region to take a decision on the appeal of applicant dated Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.03.23 16:17:18 +05'30' 3 O.A.No. 260/000620 of 2025 10.03.1993. The DD, NVS, Hyderbad, considered the appeal and rejected the same vide letter dated 29.10.2004. He challenged the said order of rejection before this Bench in OA No. 668 of 2006 which was dismissed on 01.12.2008. The said order of this Bench was challenged by him before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in W.P (C) No. 1784 of 2009 which was also dismissed on 05.03.2010. He filed RVWPET No. 74/2010 which was dismissed on 27.08.2010 but it was directed that the authority to consider his representation dated 12.04.2010. The representation was rejected vide letter dated 27.09.2012; which order he challenged before this Bench in OA No. 639 of 2013 and the same was also dismissed on 23.09.2013. The said order was also challenged by him before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in W.P (C) No. 24649 of 2013 which was disposed of on 03.10.2016 holding that no direction can be passed for his reinstatement in the post of Store Keeper. However, the Applicant may apply for the post of Store Keeper after advertisement is made and if applied, the NVS to consider his case in accordance with law after relaxation of his age. He filed REVPEET No. 331 of 2016 Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.03.23 16:17:18 +05'30' 4 O.A.No. 260/000620 of 2025 which was also dismissed. He filed another W.P (C) No. 19347 of 2017 which was dismissed. Thereafter, he filed OA No. 569 of 2017 before this Bench which was also dismissed on 24.06.2018 as against which, he filed W.P (C) No. 12294 of 2018 before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa which was also dismissed and RVWPET No. 182 of 2018 filed by him was also dismissed on 23.08.2018. The said order was carried in appeal by him to Hon'ble Supreme Court vide SLP (C) No. 30161/2018 but the same was also dismissed on 27.09.2019. He filed SPL ( C ) which was also dismissed and, thereafter, he filed Curative Petition which was also dismissed on 22.08.2023. He submitted representation dated 15.09.2025 to NVS, Hyderabad which was rejected vide order dated 12.11.2025. BEING AGGRIEVED, by the order of rejection dated 12.11.2025, he filed the instant OA on 12.12.2025 praying the following reliefs:
"8.(i) To quash the impugned order dated 12.11.2025 as at Annexure-A/13;
(ii) to direct the respondents, particularly the respondent no.3 to take decision on the proposal for approval of appointment on the proposal for approval of appointment of the applicant as submitted by the Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera,respondent no.3; Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera
o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.03.23 16:17:18 +05'30' 5 O.A.No. 260/000620 of 2025
(iii) to direct respondent no.3 to allow the applicant to join in his former post of Store Keeper now redesignated as Jr. Secretariat Assistant with continuity of service and consequential service and financial benefits;
(iv) allow the application with cost."
2. The grounds, taken in the pleadings as also reiterated by the Leaned Counsel for the Applicant in course of hearing, in support of the aforesaid reliefs are that as per the law laid down by the Hn'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others vs Pritilata Nanda, AIR 2010 SC 2821, once candidature of a candidate is accepted and he/she is allowed to participate in the process of selection, it is not open to the authority to turn around and question his/her selection and appointment on any ground. It is stated that his offer of appointment dated 11.11.1992 to the post of Store Keeper was withdrawn in letter dated 01.02.1993 on the ground that the approval of selection was under process. But till date no decision was taken on the approval. In such a view of the matter, his appointment to the post of Store Keeper is deemed to have been approved. Further, it is stated that selection to the post of Store Keeper and Driver was held by the NVS. The appointment of Driver was approved Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.03.23 16:17:18 +05'30' 6 O.A.No. 260/000620 of 2025 and selected candidate joined whereas, he has been deprived of such appointment which is discriminatory offending to the mandate enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, it is stated that in view of the above, the order of rejection of his representation vide order dated 12.11.2025 is bad in law and is liable to be quashed.
3. Respondents have filed their counter contesting and objecting the case of the Applicant. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents besides reiterating the stand taken in the counter, has vehemently objected to the very maintainability of this OA on the ground of law of res judicata and, accordingly prayed that this OA besides being without any merit on facts, also grossly hit by the doctrine of res judicata and, therefore is liable to be dismissed.
4. After considering the submissions of the respective parties perused the records.
5. It is a well recognized principle that court cannot grant a relief that has not been specifically prayed for or pleaded by the parties. Granting such relief without proper pleadings deprives the other side opportunity to Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.03.23 16:17:18 +05'30' 7 O.A.No. 260/000620 of 2025 oppose it, which results in a miscarriage of justice [Ref:
Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. Ram Kumar & Ors., AIR 1991 SC 409 & Bharat Amratlal Kothari Vs. Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 475]. In the instant case, the entire prayer of the applicant for direction to the Respondents to join in the post of Store Keeper and/or to hold that he is deemed to have been continuing in the post of Store Keeper. We find that in OA No. 569 of 2017 earlier filed by him, his prayer was to direct the respondents to take decision on the approval sought in 1993 on his selection and appointment of Store keeper and further to direct the respondents to reinstate him forthwith in the post of Storekeeper with grant of all service and financial benefits. The said OA was dismissed by this Bench on 24.06.2018 holding therein as under:
"7. We are of the considered view that after the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa dated 03.10.2016 in WP ( C) No. 24649 of 2013, except the prayer for quashing the impugned order dated 23.12.2016 all other reliefs became redundant and outmoded as allowing the reliefs shall tantamount to sitting over the order of the Hon'ble High Court; which is not permissible in the eyes of law. The only thing left for this Tribunal to consider whether Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.03.23 16:17:18 +05'30' 8 O.A.No. 260/000620 of 2025 the letter dated 23.12.2016 is in consonance with the direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa or not. We find that the Hon'ble High Court in WP (C) No. 24649 of 2013 while declining to direct reinstatement of the applicant were pleased to observe that the Petitioner may apply for the post of Store Keeper after advertisement is made and if he applies, the opposite parties are to consider the petitioner's case in accordance with law after relaxation of his age (if the petitioner has crossed the maximum age limits), in view of the fact that the petitioner had at one point of time been engaged as a Store Keeper under the Opposite Parties 3 & 4 and the Respondents in the letter dated 23.12.2016 intimated to the Applicant that an advertisement for filling up the vacancies of LDC/SK in JNVs of Hyd Region has already been published in Employment News dated 29.08.2015 i.e. prior to the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, and, therefore, the applicant was advised to apply for the post of Store Keeper in JNVs duly seeking age relaxation referring the Court Order, whenever advertisement is issued by the JNVs. In view of the above, we are yet to convince as to how such letter has given rise a caution of action to the Applicant to approach this Bench especially when the specific direction of the Hon'ble High Court was that the applicant may apply after the advertisement for the post of Store Keeper is made."
The Hon'ble High Court of Orissa dismissed the Writ Petition by holding that no direction can be issued for reinstatement of the applicant to the post of Store keeper. The order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.03.23 16:17:18 +05'30' 9 O.A.No. 260/000620 of 2025 was also upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Doctrine of res Judicata allows the court to dismiss a case if the same facts, laws, and parties are attempted to be brought before it again. The principle that a successive application merits no consideration being hit by res judicata is a fundamental rule aimed at ensuring finality in litigation, preventing the abuse of process, and avoiding the harassment of parties through re-litigation. As per the procedure and law, if a matter, issue, or claim has already been adjudicated upon by a competent court in a former case between the same parties, a subsequent application or suit covering the same ground is barred.
6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a recent decision rendered on 22 APRIL 2025 in the case of Amruddin Ansari (dead) through Lrs & ors. vs Afajal Ali & ors., 2025 INSC 566, held that the principle of res judicata is based on the common law maxim "nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa", which means that no man shall be vexed twice over the same cause of action. It is a doctrine applied to give finality to a lis. According to this doctrine, an issue or a point once decided and attends finality, should not be allowed to be reopened and re- Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.03.23 16:17:18 +05'30' 10 O.A.No. 260/000620 of 2025 agitated in a subsequent suit. In other words, if an issue involved in a suit is finally adjudicated by a Court of competent jurisdiction, the same issue in a subsequent suit cannot be allowed to be re-agitated. Thus, going by the decisions earlier rendered by this Bench, by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa and Hon'ble Apex Court, referred to above, we hold that this OA besides on merit is also liable to be dismissed being hit by the doctrine of res judicata.
7. In the result, this OA so also pending MA is any stand dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra)
Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.)
KB/PS
Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera
Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.03.23 16:17:18 +05'30'