Writ Petition Dismissed: Promotions Upheld, Res Judicata & Procedural Rules Emphasized

The Division Bench dismissed the writ petition challenging the promotion of respondent 5 over the petitioner to the post of Lower Division Clerk (L.D.C.). The court emphasized the principles of res judicata and procedural rules governing writ petitions, highlighting the binding nature of decisions pronounced on merits unless modified or reversed through appropriate proceedings. The judgment underscores the importance of consistency and finality in judicial decisions, ultimately affirming the dismissal of the petition.

---

---

Issues:
1. Promotion dispute between petitioner and respondent 5 for the post of Lower Division Clerk (L.D.C.)
2. Alleged violation of Model Rules in the promotion process
3. Maintainability of the writ petition based on previous withdrawal

The judgment pertains to a writ petition seeking to quash a resolution promoting respondent 5 over the petitioner to the post of Lower Division Clerk (L.D.C.). The petitioner, a matriculate tax collector, contended that promotions in the ministerial cadre are typically from the tax department, and the petitioner, being senior, should have been considered. The respondent municipality promoted respondent 5 without complying with Rule 5 of the Model Rules, which mandates promotion based on seniority unless reasons are recorded for passing over an employee. Counter affidavits revealed that respondent 5 had a higher pay scale and was confirmed earlier than the petitioner. The petitioner's earlier withdrawn writ petition raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the present petition, citing the rule of res judicata. The case was transferred to a Division Bench for consideration.

The maintainability of the writ petition was extensively debated, drawing on precedents like Hoshnak Singh v. Union of India and Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh. The principle of res judicata, as enshrined in Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, was highlighted. The Supreme Court's stance on the binding nature of decisions pronounced on merits in writ petitions unless modified or reversed through appropriate proceedings was reiterated. The Division Bench referenced the Sarguja Transport case, where the withdrawal of a writ petition without leave to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action was held to create a bar. The application of Order 23, Rule 1(3) of the Code and the rule of res judicata in different scenarios was emphasized to determine the maintainability of the present writ petition.

Ultimately, the Division Bench, in line with the law laid down in the Sarguja Transport case, concluded that the writ petition was not maintainable and dismissed it. Justice B.P. Singh concurred with the decision, affirming the dismissal of the petition. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to legal principles of res judicata and procedural rules governing the filing of writ petitions, ensuring consistency and finality in judicial decisions.

---