Court No. - 29
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 55 of 2019 Appellant :- Kanchan Lata Bhardwaj Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Hari Bhawan Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Aakash Rai
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
The delay of 33 days in filing the appeal is sufficiently explained and is accordingly condoned.
The delay condonation application no.1 of 2019 is allowed.
Heard Sri Hari Bhawan Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant, learned standing counsel for respondent no.1 and Sri Aakash Rai, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 4.
The petitioner-appellant appeared in an examination conducted by the U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Seva Chayan Board, Allahabad on 17.6.2016. She was unsuccessful in the said examination. She, therefore, preferred Writ-A No.17581 of 2018 contending that she ought to have been awarded 112 marks out of 125 marks. The learned Single Judge considering the entire material on record dismissed the writ petition holding that no material was produced to show as to how the petitioner would have received 112 marks out of 125 marks and eligible for any appointment. After the dismissal of the above writ petition, the petitioner preferred another writ petition to the same effect and the same has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 16.11.2018 contending that second writ petition is not maintainable.
The petitioner-appellant has now preferred this special appeal challenging the above order dated 16.11.2018 passed by the Writ Court dismissing her writ petition as not maintainable. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant is that when the petitioner- appellant had filed the earlier writ petition certain documents viz. O.M.R. sheet was not available and, therefore, she could not raise certain points, which ought to have been argued in the earlier writ petition. This cannot be a ground for entertaining a second writ petition.
It is a settled law that successive writ petitions for the same cause of action are not maintainable. It is not in dispute that the cause of action in the first petition filed by the petitioner-appellant is the same as in second and merely for the reason that she could not raise certain points in the first petition or could not file some documents would not give an occasion to her to maintain the second writ petition.
The special appeal, as such is completely misconceived and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.1.2019 AKJ