9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (7) TMI 1308 - HC - Indian LawsWrit appeals barred by the principles of res judicata - With the threat of a UPSA getting retrenched looming large, the clamour to establish that each is an LPSA was intense - claim of the two teachers to be the LPSAs was upheld. The aggrieved two filed writ appeals. They have, however, chosen to file appeals in their own writ petitions, but not in those filed by the other teachers - Held that - Res judicata is a common law principle of preclusion, devised to deter endless cycles of litigation; it is animated by a public policy against repetitious recourse to judicial remedies. Also of not less importance is the economy of judicial time, which can be spent on worthier causes. Three maxims can be cited as forming the foundation for this rule aimed at efficiency and finality (a) Nemo debet lis vaxari pro eadem causa (no man should be vexed twice for the same cause); (b) Interest republicae ut sit finis litium (it is in the interest of the state that there should be an end to a litigation); and (c) Re judicata pro veritate occipitur (a judicial decision must be accepted as correct). The four elements of res judicata-a black letter law- are as follows (a) the parties are identical or in privity; (b) the judgment in the prior action was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (c) the prior action was concluded by a final judgment on the merits; and (4) the same claim or cause of action was involved in both actions. Though Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure consecrates this common law principle as a statutory mandate, it incontrovertibly applies to public law remedies, too, apart from civil disputes. The Courts have held that even the public interest litigation falls within its mischief and its enforcement demands vigil. Illustratively stated, on a common issue two rival contenders, let us assume, take out independent legal proceedings before a court of law. The court, we further assume, allows one and dismisses the other. The aggrieved party files one appeal. Though the initial adjudication was through one single judgment, it actually amounts to two decisions, notionally. As no appeal is filed against the other decision, the finding notionally attributable to it attains finality. In such an event, the single appeal arising out of a case dismissed or allowed, as the case may be, is hit by the principle of res judicata. As there are no appeals against W.P.filed by Rajitha K and Latha E.V. Thus, the findings in these two writ petitions have become final. The findings, as sought in W.P. include that (a) Sajithkumar is a UPSA; (b) Sajithkumar will have no claim to the post of LPSA; (c) Sajithkumar be retrenched in view of his conflicting claim; Nisha M.Nair is not entitled to be treated as an LPSA; and authorities should not post Sajithkumar as an LPSA without/before posting Rajitha. The irresistible, inescapable conclusion, to our mind, is that the above two appeals are barred by the principles of res judicata. Thus, any further discussion on the merits, we conclude, is obviated.
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of whether the teachers are Lower Primary School Assistants (LPSA) or Upper Primary School Teachers (UPSA). 2. Application of the principle of res judicata. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Determination of LPSA vs. UPSA: The primary issue in the case was to ascertain which teachers were LPSAs and which were UPSAs, amidst the threat of retrenchment. Initially, four writ petitions were filed: one by the Manager (along with a teacher) of the School and the rest by three teachers. The learned Single Judge upheld the claim of two teachers to be LPSAs, leading to the filing of writ appeals by the aggrieved parties. The factual controversy involved the appointments and qualifications of the teachers, the reduction of posts due to diminished student strength, and the subsequent decisions by educational authorities. - Facts as Pleaded by E.P. Sajithkumar: Sajithkumar was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in 2002, claiming to be an LPSA. However, due to student strength reduction, posts were reduced, and the AEO wrongly treated Sajithkumar’s post as UPSA. The DDE's enquiry favored Sajithkumar, suspecting tampering of records, and the government affirmed the DDE's report, directing Sajithkumar's appointment as an LPSA. - Government’s Assertion: The government contended that Sajithkumar was appointed as a UPSA, not LPSA, due to his qualifications (B.Ed.). The reduction in posts led to retrenchment and reclassification issues, with Sajithkumar seeking to be reckoned as an LPSA to avoid retrenchment. - Litigious Course and Reliefs Sought: Various writ petitions sought declarations and mandamus orders regarding the rightful classification and appointment of the teachers. The Single Judge found interpolations in Sajithkumar’s service record but concluded that Sajithkumar was not qualified to be an LPSA due to his B.Ed. qualification, which was not permissible for LPSA appointments post-2000 amendments to the KER. 2. Application of the Principle of Res Judicata: The appeals raised the preliminary question of whether they were barred by the principles of res judicata. The court discussed the doctrine of res judicata, emphasizing its purpose to prevent repetitive litigation and ensure judicial efficiency and finality. - Res Judicata Elements: The court outlined the four elements of res judicata: identical parties or privity, judgment by a competent court, final judgment on merits, and the same claim or cause of action in both actions. - Application to Public Law Remedies: The principle applies to public law remedies, including writ petitions, to prevent endless litigation cycles. - Relevant Case Law: The court referenced Sheoparsan Singh v. Ramnandan Prasad Singh and Sri Gangai Vinayagar Temple v. Meenakshi Ammal, affirming the universal application of res judicata. - Illustrative Application: The court illustrated the application of res judicata, noting that if no appeal is filed against one decision in a common judgment, the findings in that decision attain finality, barring further appeals on the same issues. Conclusion: The court concluded that the appeals were barred by res judicata, as there were no appeals against W.P. (C) No.35253 of 2010 and W.P. (C) No.27736 of 2010, making the findings in those petitions final. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed without further discussion on the merits. Judgment: The appeals (W.A. No.160 of 2016 and W.A. No.218 of 2016) were dismissed as barred by res judicata, with no order on costs.
|
