MADHUSOODANAN v. THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Recording the undertaking that the appellant will beabsorbed permanently, the Writ Appeal is disposed of
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Ext.P3 judgment in Writ Appeal 1950 of 1999 reads thus :“Appellant/petitioner approached this court for a direction toappoint him as Lower Division Typist. His petition was not grantedbecause there was a Division Bench direction giving permission tofill up only six vacancies. It is submitted…
Judgment
S.SIRI JAGAN.J-------------------------------------------WP(C) NO:24983 OF 2006--------------------------------------------Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2012JUDGMENTPursuant to a notification inviting applications dated28.10.1995 issued by the respondent, the petitioner applied forselection to the post of Lower Division Typist under the CochinDevaswom Board. By Ext.P-1, five persons were appointed. According to the petitioner, although there were sufficientvacancies to accommodate the petitioner also and he was thenext in line for appointment, the petitioner was not givenappointment. He approached this court by filing an OriginalPetition and a Writ Appeal viz. O.P.No.6828/98 andW.A.No.1950/99. There was an interim order based on which thepetitioner was appointed on 07.05.2001. Subsequently, the writappeal was disposed of by Ext.P-3 judgment in view of the interimorder and the appointment pursuant thereto. The petitioner hasbeen continuing in service accordingly. The petitioner has nowfiled this writ petition seeking appointment with effect from thedate of appointment of the other five persons. According to the WPC.NO. 24983 OF 20062petitioner, going by Ext.R (a), another person was appointed inaddition to the five persons mentioned in Ext.P-1, from outsidethe select list prepared, which would go to show that there was avacancy and therefore the petitioner should have beenaccommodated in that vacancy along with the other five personsappointed by Ext.P-1. The petitioner therefore seeks the followingreliefs :
a) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing and setting asideExhibit P-5,b) Hold that the petitioner is entitled to be appointed asL.D.Clerk with effect from the date of appointment of L.D.Clerksappointed as per Exhibit P-1,c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriatewrit, order or direction, directing the respondent to appoint thepetitioner as L.D.Clerk w.e.f. the date of appointment ofL.D.Clerks appointed as per Exhibit P-1 and grant him allconsequential benefits.
A Counter Affidavit has been filed by the respondentwherein the stand taken is that at the time of issue of Ext.P-1there were only five vacancies and the first five persons eligiblefor appointment were appointed. By the time the DevaswomBoard filed a counter affidavit in the original petition before thiscourt, there arose another vacancy and it was in that vacancy thepetitioner was appointed pursuant to the interim order of thiscourt. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the WPC.NO. 24983 OF 20063petitioner that the petitioner should have been appointed witheffect from an earlier date, is the contention raised by therespondent.
I have considered rival contention in detail.
Operative part
Ext.P3 judgment in Writ Appeal 1950 of 1999 reads thus :“Appellant/petitioner approached this court for a direction toappoint him as Lower Division Typist. His petition was not grantedbecause there was a Division Bench direction giving permission tofill up only six vacancies. It is submitted that one among themwas absorbed and petitioner can be accommodated. The learnedSingle Judge disposed of the writ petition for approaching aDivision Bench, instead of referring the matter to a Division Bench, on 10.04.2001 an interim order was issued by a Division Bench ofthis Court as follows :“There will be a direction to appoint thepetitioner to the post of L.D.Typist. This will beprovisional and subject to the further orders to bepassed by this Court.” 2. The Standing Counsel for the respondent submitted thataccordingly petitioner was appointed as L.D.Typist and he can beaccommodated in that post. Since it is admitted that he can beaccommodated on permanent basis, the writ appeal has becomeinfructuous. Recording the undertaking that the appellant will beabsorbed permanently, the Writ Appeal is disposed of.” 4. In that writ appeal the petitioner could have and ought tohave raised the claim for appointment with effect from an anteriordate, if the petitioner was so entitled to. Having suffered Ext.P-3judgment the petitioner cannot now raise a claim which thepetitioner ought to have raised in that writ appeal. As such, the WPC.NO. 24983 OF 20064claim of the petitioner is hit by constructive res judicata. In the above circumstances I do not find any merit in thiswrit petition and accordingly the same is dismissed.S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGEAV
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.