P. Karthikeyan v. Union of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 22..4..2008Coram:The Honourable Mr.Justice P.K. MISRAandThe Honourable Mr.Justice K.CHANDRUW. P. Nos. 24496 of 2001, 30091, 30092 and 35568 of 2004 andW.P.M.P. Nos. 389 and 390 of 2001 in W.P. No. 24496 of 2001W.P. No. 24496 of 2001:P. Karthikeyan... Petitioner-vs-1.Union of IndiaRep. by Union Territory of PondicherryThrough Secretary to GovernmentEducation DepartmentChief SecretariatGovernment of PondicherryPondicherry-12.Director of Education Directorate of EducationGovernment of Pondicherry Brindavanam Pondicherry-133.Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench,City Civil Court CompoundChennai-104. ... RespondentsPetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prayingto issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records ofthe third respondent in its order dated 04.5.2001 passed in DiaryNo.1658/2001 and consequent order in the RA No. 24/2001 dated29.8.2001 and quash the same and direct the third respondent toconsider the OA on merits and dispose of the same in accordance withlaw. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P. Nos. 30091 and 30092 of 2004:P. Karthikeyan... Petitioner-vs-1.Union of IndiaRep. by Union Territory of PondicherryThrough Secretary to GovernmentEducation DepartmentChief SecretariatGovernment of PondicherryPondicherry 605 001.2.Director of Education Directorate of EducationGovernment of Pondicherry Brindavanam Pondicherry-605 0053.The Under Secretary to Government (School Education)Chief SecretariatGovernment of PondicherryPondicherry 605 001.4Vice Chairman,Central Administrative Tribunal,Chennai Bench,City Civil Court Buildings,Chennai-104. ... RespondentsPetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prayingto issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records ofthe fourth respondent in its order passed in Diary Nos.977 and978 /2004 dt. 7.6.04 and quash the same and direct the respondents 1and 2 to grant the consequential benefits to conduct a review DPC andconsider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Post GraduateTeacher with effect from August 1978 and for all consequentialpromotion such as Vice Principal, Principal and Joint Director ofEducation on par with his immediate juniors restrospectively and togrant all attendant benefits such as pay, increments, seniority, etc. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P. No. 35568 of 2004:P. Karthikeyan... Petitioner-vs-1.Union of IndiaRep. by Union Territory of PondicherryThrough Secretary to GovernmentEducation DepartmentChief SecretariatGovernment of PondicherryPondicherry 605 001.2.The Under Secretary to Government (School Education)Chief SecretariatGovernment of PondicherryPondicherry-605 001.3.T. Raman4.R. Lakshmi5.P.V. Ramasamy6.A. Mary Philomina7.S. Selvi8.C. Krishnaraj9.R. Anushya10.Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal,City Civil Court Building, High Court Campus, Chennai - 600 104. ... RespondentsPetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prayingto issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus calling for the recordsconnected with O.A. No. 466 of 2003 from the tenth respondent and toquash the same and to direct the first respondent to consider thecase of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Vice-Principalwith effect from March 1989 and consequently, to revise the senioritylist of Vice-Principal fixing him in the appropriate place as per lawand also for other consequential promotions to the post of HigherSecondary School and Joint Director of School Education on par withhis immediate juniors with all attendant, monetary and servicebenefits with effect from August 1978. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioner : Mr. K.V. Subramanian, SCin all WPs for Mr. M.A. Abdul WahabFor Respondents : Mr. Syed Mustafa, Addl. GP in all WPs (Puducherry)COMMON ORDERK. CHANDRU, J.Heard the arguments of Mr. K.V. Subramanian, learned SeniorCounsel appearing for Mr. M.A. Abdul Wahab for the petitioner andMr. Syed Mustafa, learned Additional Government Pleader (Puducherry)representing the official respondents and have perused the records.2.The petitioner filed W.P. No. 24496 of 2001 against theorder of the Central Administrative Tribunal [for short, 'CAT'] dated04.5.2001 made in Diary No. 1658 of 2001 and confirmed by the CAT inR.A. No. 24 of 2001 vide order dated 29.8.2001 and for a furtherdirection to the CAT to consider his O.A. on merits. The petitionerwas working as a Lecturer in Sri NKC Government Higher SecondarySchool, Kurusukuppam. He filed an Original Application for settingaside the seniority list dated 19 / 26.4.2005 and the consequentialorder dated 08.02.2001 as well as to declare that he was eligible forpromotion to the post of PG Teacher with effect from August 1978 andfor a further consequential direction to promote him as VicePrincipal and Principal with all benefits. 3.The Registry of the CAT raised an objection regarding themaintainability of the O.A. on the ground of non-joinder of partiesand also the multiple reliefs claimed. Therefore, the matter wasplaced before the CAT together with the Registry's objection in DiaryNo. 1658 of 2001. The CAT held that the earlier proceedings hadconcluded the issue and gave finality to the validity of the DPC heldon 02.8.1978. Once again, the petitioner had filed O.A. No. 479 of1991 and that was also disposed of by a common order dated28.11.1994. A review of the said order was also dismissed. Inthat view of the matter, the CAT held that the previous order willoperate as res judicata and relied upon the judgment of the SupremeCourt in Sulochana Amma v. Narayanan Nair [1994 (2) SCC 14]. Italso further relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in HopePlantations v. Taluk Land Board Peermedu and another [1999 (5)SCC 590]. The CAT rejected the argument of the petitioner that theprinciple of res judicata will apply only to Civil Courts and heldthat the same principle will apply to all other forums. In thatview of the matter, the O.A. was dismissed as it was barred by resjudicata. Even the Review Application was also dismissed on29.8.2001. It is against the said order, the present writ petitionhas been filed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.Notice was ordered on 06.10.2007. Similarly, W.P. No.30091 is filed against the order in Diary No. 977 of 2004 forconsequential benefits. W.P. No. 30092 of 2004 is filed againstthe order in Diary No. 978 of 2004 dated 07.6.2004. W.P. No.35568 of 2004 is filed against the order dated 28.10.2004 in O.A. No.466 of 2003. 5.Diary Nos. 977 and 978 of 2004 were dismissed by a commonorder dated 07.6.2004 by holding that the application filed underSection 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act to declare its earlierorders dated 12.01.1989, 30.8.1991, 28.11.1994 in T.A. No. 95 of1987, O.A. Nos. 463 of 1989 and 479 of 1991 respectively as nullityand that they should be recalled as not maintainable and it followedthe Full Bench judgment of the CAT, Bangalore Bench reported in 1987(3) ATC 328 [John Lucas and another v. Additional Chief MechanicalEngineer, S.C. Railway and others]. In that order, the CAT heldthat the it lacked power to set aside its own order. 6.The petitioner once again filed W.P. No. 35568 of 2004against the order passed in O.A. No. 466 of 2003. The prayer inthat petition was to call for the records pertaining to memorandumdated 31.5.2002 and to set aside the seniority list of VicePrincipals. The CAT held that the issue relating to the earlierseniority list was already concluded and given effect to and thepresent argument once again raking up the old issue, is notmaintainable under the principles of res judicata and if thepetitioner is aggrieved, he ought to have moved the High Courtagainst those orders and not to re-agitate the matter once againbefore the CAT.7.The learned Senior Counsel strenuously contended thatearliest case, viz., T.A. No. 95 of 1987 was obtained by fraud playedby the official respondents by producing manipulated DPC records.Therefore, the CAT was wrong in rejecting the prayer of thepetitioner. 8.In this context, he referred to the judgment of the SupremeCourt in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh, [(2000) 3SCC 581]. He also drew the attention of this Court to thefollowing passage found in paragraph 17, which reads as follows:Para 16:"Therefore, we have no doubt that the remedy to movefor recalling the order on the basis of the newly-discovered facts amounting to fraud of high degree,cannot be foreclosed in such a situation. No court ortribunal can be regarded as powerless to recall its ownorder if it is convinced that the order was wangled https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ through fraud or misrepresentation of such a dimensionas would affect the very basis of the claim."Though there may not be any quarrel over the proposition laid thereinthat when a fraud was committed on a judicial forum, the said forumcan exercise its inherent power and can recall its orders obtained byplaying fraud. 9.In the present case, the petitioner was not helpless and heought to have moved this Court at the earliest point of time aboutthe fraud being played on the Tribunal. Having allowed the saidorder to become final and be implemented by the respondents, hecannot go on commit a raid on the CAT by filing successiveapplications for the very same relief. We are not persuaded to setaside the orders of the CAT under challenge on the specious plea madeby the petitioner that he was a victim of the fraud committed by therespondents that too, by an order which was obtained as early as on12.01.1989 in T.A. No. 95 of 1987. No useful purpose will beserved in entertaining any of the petition filed by the petitioner.10.In the light of the above, the writ petitions failed andare devoid of merits. Accordingly, they stand dismissed. Thoughwe would have been justified in imposing cost, due to the persuasionmade by the learned Senior Counsel, we are restrained from doing so.Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.sd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrargriTo1.Secretary to GovernmentUnion Territory of PondicherryEducation DepartmentChief SecretariatGovernment of PondicherryPondicherry-605 001 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.Director of Education Directorate of EducationGovernment of Pondicherry Brindavanam Pondicherry3.The Under Secretary to Government (School Education)Chief SecretariatGovernment of PondicherryPondicherry-605 0014Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal Chennai -104.4 ccs To The Senior Government Pleader-cum-Senior Public Prosecutor for Pondicherry,SR.22795,22796,22797 & 22798.+1 cc To Mr. M.A. Abdul Wahab, Advocate, SR.23252 W. P. No. 24496 of 2001, etc.bs [co]gkg/12.5