Heard Sri Pralam Baghna Narain, the petitioner, who appears in person, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Satyanshu Ojah, learned counsel for the Committee of Management i.e. the opposite party No.4.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"1. to issue a writ, order or direction commanding and directing the opposite parties for writing the name of the petitioner on the teacher's attendance register and also for payment of salary.
2. to issue an order for regularization of Adhoc service of the petitioner under Section 31-C of U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Amendment Act, 1992 which is pending under Section-2 in the Secretariat Higher Education, U.P. Government, since the year 2017."
The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been removed from the Teacher's Attendance Registrar by the then Manager and the Principal of the Institution in question and the petitioner has been prevented from making signature on the Attendance Register, resultant thereof, the petitioner has not been paid his salary.
The petitioner has prayed that in view of the provisions of Section 31-C of U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Amendment Act, 1992 the petitioner may be regularized in service.
On being confronted the petitioner to demonstrate any documents that he is discharging his duties in the Institution in question, he could not show any document to that effect. On being further confronted asking the date from when the petitioner has not been permitted to make signature in the Teacher's Attendance Register of the Institution in question, he has only submitted that he has not been permitted to make signature since 2017 but any relevant documents with effect from 1989, to be more precise, with effect from 31.03.1989 when Dr. Badaruddin was appointed in the Institution in question and submitted his joining on 15.04.1989, again no material has been shown to convince the Court that the petitioner has discharged his duties after 31.03.1989.
On the other hand, Sri Satyanshu Ojha, learned counsel for the Committee of Management has apprised the Court that the petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis on 02.11.1988 for the period of six months or till regular selection is made. As soon as the regular selection had been made on 31.03.1989 the petitioner was not permitted to discharge his duties.
Sri Satyanshu Ojha has drawn attention of this Court towards paras-6 to 18 of the counter affidavit whereby he has indicated that the petitioner is a habitual litigant and has filed successive writ petitions for the same relief. He has also drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.8 of the counter affidavit, which is the judgment and order dated 26.02.2009 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.37977 of 2006; Pralab Baghna Narain vs. Deen Dayal Upadhyay Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur & others whereby this Court after considering the fact that the petitioner has filed successive writ petition dismissed the said writ petition with the cost of Rs.500/-. Some relevant paragraphs of the judgment and order dated 26.02.2009 are being reproduced here-in-below:-
"Aggrieved by the judgment dated 25.03.2003 which was corrected on 18.04.2003 in respect to certain typographical error, the petitioner preferred S.L.P. (Civil) No 10098 10099 of 2003 before the Hon'ble Apex Count and we are informed by petitioner that the S.L.P. has also been dismissed by the Apex Court. Thereafter now he has filed this fourth writ petition where also he has sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to make any appointment on the post of lecturer (Physics) in the College and instead pay him salary on the said post and other benefits and also regularize him on the aforesaid post under Section 31-C of the Act as amended in 1992.
In our view, in the similar facts and circumstances claiming similar relief once his Writ Petition No. 37872 of 2002 has bee dismissed by this Court vide judgement dated 25.03.2003 and the said judgement has attained finality after dismissal of S.L.P by the Apes Court, the present writ petition with similar relief being second writ petition is not maintainable and amounts to gross abuse of the process of law.
Besides, even otherwise the relief sought by the petitioner relying on Section 31-C of the Act is thoroughly misconceived inasmuch as Section 31-C of Act is applicable where a person has been appointed on ad hoc basis if the Commission has failed to recommend a candidate despite the requisition sent by the management and if he was appointed after 03.01.1984 and not later than 22.11.1991, may be given substantive appointment. In the case in hand, the petitioner was not appointed on failure of the Commission to make any recommendation but here the recommendation was made by the Commission and appointment letters were issued but twice the candidates offered appointment did not join and thereafter the petitioner was appointed in the interregnum period till next recommendation is made by the Commission."
The operative portion of the judgment and order dated 26.02.2009 is being reproduced here-in-below:-
"It is evident from a perusal of Section 16 that it is applicable only where the Commission has failed to recommend the name within three months from the date of notification of vacancy to it. In the case in hand, twice the Commission made recommendation but the candidates issued appointment letters did not join. Thereafter when the Commission was in the process of making further recommendation at this stage the petitioner for a short period was appointed. The aforesaid appointment does not fall within the purview of Section 16 of the Act and the management, therefore, had no jurisdiction to appoint the petitioner even on ad hoc basis under the Act in 1988.
Besides, it appears that the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 37872 of 2002 preferred by this petitioner has recorded a finding that he was never appointed to the post and as such whatsoever. This finding since, has become final cannot be materialized by this Court. We are of the clear view that the present petition is sheer abuse of the process of the Court. It is well settled legal position that successive petition for same relief cannot be entertained and such a situation this Court must dismiss the writ position with exemplary cost. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs which quantified to Rs. 500/."
The petitioner has however drawn attention of this Court towards the Annexure No.RA-2 of the rejoinder affidavit, which is a letter dated 16.03.2017 preferred by the Under Secretary of the Higher Education, Anubhag-6 addressing to the Director, Higher Education, U.P., Allahabad indicating therein that if the appointment of Dr. Badaruddin was made fraudulently, the appropriate exercise should be carried out by lodging F.I.R. and by issuing the consequential recovery order.
Be that as it may, in this writ petition the Court may not go into the genuineness of appointment of Dr. Badaruddin inasmcuh as Dr. Badaruddin has not been impleaded in the present writ petition as one of the opposite parties. Besides for the prayer of the writ petition, the petitioner has earlier filed couple of writ petitions as indicated from paras-6 to 18 of the counter affidavit of the Committee of Management of the Institution in question of which no categoric denial has been given in the rejoinder affidavit, therefore, I am not inclined to pass any order in favour of the petitioner.
Besides, I am of the considered opinion that successive writ petition is not permissible as the same is barred under Chapter-XXII Rule 7 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.
The Division Bench of this Court in re: Ashok Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P. & others reported in [2004 (3) E.S.C. (All.)] 1629, Swatandra Kumar Agarwal vs. Managing Director, U.P. Financial Corporation, Kanpur and another reported in [1993 AWC 1497] and the decision of learned Single Judge of this Court in re: L.S. Tripathi vs. Banaras Hindu University and others reported in [(1993) 1 UPLBEC 448] have held that the second writ petition or successive writ petition on the same relief shall be barred under Chapter-XXII Rule 7 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 24.8.2021 Suresh/ [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]