1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 & 5, 6 and Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.4.
2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of direction to the respondents to consider the claim for appointment on compassionate ground due to death of his father working as Assistant Teacher in junior high school run and managed by private management receiving aid from the state government.
3. The petitioner filed writ petition No.5263 of 2010 before this court for issuance of direction for consideration of his claim for grant of appointment on compassionate ground, which was finally disposed of by this court vide judgment and order dated 20.07.2010 with a direction to the District Basic Education Officer (DBEO) to forward the papers of the petitioner to the state government for grant of relaxation under Dying in Harness Rules with a direction to the state government to consider and pass appropriate order within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order.
4. The petitioner filed certified copy of the order along with representation before the DBEO to pass appropriate order on the claim setup by him for appointment on compassionate ground. Despite of repeated approaches made by the petitioner since year 2010, the DBEo did not pass any order on the request made by the petitioner.
5. Now, again the petitioner has filed present writ petition before this court for the relief, which was granted to him in the earlier writ petition filed before this court on the ground that in spite of repeated approaches and representations filed before the DBEO, no order whatsoever has been passed till date.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the Contempt of Courts Act, limitation is of one year, which has expired and the petitioner has no other remedy except to file present petition before this court.
7. He further submitted that claim of the petitioner is still under consideration, therefore, this court by exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can entertain the petition and pass appropriate order for consideration of claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground.
8. His last submission is that the petitioner has now become remedyless due to non filing of contempt petition within time prescribed under the Contempt of Court Act and still no order whatsoever has been passed by the DBEO.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that this is third petition on the same cause of action and is not maintainable in view of the provisions contained under Chapter 8 Rule 17 of the Rules of the Court. They invited attention of this court on page 25 of the paper book and pointed out that the DBEO has already forwarded claim of the petitioner for grant of relaxation to the state government vide letter dated 01.12.2014 and information under Right to Information Act, 2005 in this regard has been given to the petitioner vide letter dated 21.12.2020.
10. They further submitted that by giving explanation of delay, the petitioner can approach the contempt court for non compliance of the judgment and order dated 20.07.2010. They next submitted that this is third petition on the same cause of action as the second petition was dismissed as withdrawn, therefore, three petitions on the same cause of action are not maintainable.
11. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
12. On perusal, it is evident that the petitioner filed writ petition No.5263 of 2010 for consideration of his claim for relaxation in grant of appointment on compassionate ground, which was finally disposed of with direction to the DBEO to transmit the papers before the state government for grant of relaxation as required under Dying in Harness Rules with a direction to the state government to consider and pass appropriate order within three months.
13. The petitioner has already approached to the state government as well as the DBEO but no order whatsoever has been passed. He also filed another writ petition before this court, which was dismissed as not pressed without any liberty to file afresh.
14. In the opinion of this court, successive writ petitions are not permissible to be filed once this court has adjudicated a cause of action arose and passed an order. Chapter 8 Rule 17 of the High Court Rules also barres successive petitions on the same set of facts and grounds.
15. It has also been held by this court as well as by Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions that successive petitions on the same cause of action is an abuse of process and should not be entertained.
16. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach appropriate forum.
Order Date :- 21.1.2021 Adarsh K Singh