(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI) 1. We have heard Mr. Balkrishna Acharya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Apurva A. Dave, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. This Intra-Court Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 13.9.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.3611 of 2011.
3. The brief facts are that the appellant was engaged as daily wage Farrash in the Bank of the respondents on 28.5.1985 for a period of 61 days. After expiry of initial term, he appears to have been engaged on similar terms. In 1989, the Bank circulated the post of Farrash-cum-Messenger, Sweeper, Hamal etc. for being filled from among the surviving daily wage employees. The appellant applied for the post of Farrash-cum-Messenger. He was interviewed on 26.9.1989, but he could not be selected. After 8 years, the appellant made a representation dated 3.4.1997 claiming appointment. The application was rejected by the Bank on 11.4.1997 on the ground that the appellant was not found eligible for the appointment. The appellant did not challenge the order dated 11.4.1997. He kept silent for the next seven years and six months and thereafter on 30.11.2004 and 18.12.2004, he made representations to the respondents claiming appointment. The appellant also filed writ petition being Special Civil Application No.2741 of 2005. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 1.3.2005 on the ground of delay by observing that the relief cannot be granted to the appellant after lapse of 16 years. The appellant thereafter filed Letters Patent Appeal No.848 of 2005 which was dismissed by Division Bench by judgment dated 27.7.2005. After the dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal, the order became final between the appellant and the Bank.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the appellant obtained documents under the Right to Information Act and then he came to know that the persons who are less qualified had been appointed. The documents were received by the appellant on 18.12.2007. Thereafter, the appellant filed Pre- Litigation Application No.39 of 2009 before the High Court Permanent Lok Adalat & Visama on 28.1.2009. The Lok Adalat issued notice to the respondents and after reply was filed by the respondents, disposed of the application by order dated 4.11.2009. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application dated 11.11.2010 before the Bank which was rejected by the Bank on 6.1.2011. Therefore, the appellant filed Special Civil Application No.3611 of 2011 which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on two grounds :- (i) that the matter is highly belated and (ii) that the principles of res judicata would be applicable as earlier writ petition of the appellant has been dismissed and the order of dismissal has been affirmed in Letters Patent Appeal.
5. We are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the claim of the appellant has been decided in earlier writ petition being Special Civil Application No.2741 of 2005 by judgment dated 1.3.2005 and the said decision has been affirmed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.848 of 2005 on 27.7.2005. Merely because the petitioner has obtained any information under the Right to Information Act subsequently, would not affect the finality of the decision and the principles of constructive res judicata would apply to the proceedings.
6. We do not find any merits in this Letters Patent Appeal.
This Letters Patent Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
7. In view of dismissal of main appeal, Civil Application does not survive and it is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
[V. M. SAHAI, J.] Sd/-
[G. B. SHAH, J.] Savariya