w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Mukhbeer Singh v/s Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board/Commission, Allahabad

    C.M.W.P. 51586 of 2000

    Decided On, 29 November 2000

    At, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


    For the Appearing Parties: Kuldeep Saxena, R.P. Dubey, B.K. Mishra, K.K. Chand, Advocates.

Judgment Text


(1.) Heard Sri Kuldeep Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. P. Dubey and Sri B. N. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Sri K. K. Chand learned standing counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3 to 5.

(2.) The petitioner who claims to be the senior most teacher of R.R. Inter College, Pilakhwa, district Ghaziabad has filed this writ petition for a direction to the respondents for initiating fresh process for appointment on the post of regular principal and to r

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

strain them in the meantime from interfering in the functioning of the petitioner as ad-hoc Principal of the college. The claim of the petitioner is two-fold, one that when earlier vacancy arose in 1990, it was filled by appointing senior most teacher as ad-hoc Principal, who later on became permanent under Section 33A (1A) added to U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission Act, 1982, by U. P. Act No. 26 of 1991 by which sub-section (1A) was inserted in Section 33A with effect from 6.4.1991. Therefore, the petitioner too may be appointed as ad-hoc Principal. The second limb of the argument is that the respondents are insisting for appointing respondent No. 6 who was selected by the Board in 1997, whereas the vacancy arose in the year 2000 only, therefore, a candidate selected earlier could not be appointed to a vacancy occurring later. (3.) Sri R. P. Dubey, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 urged that this petition was liable to be dismissed without going into merits, as the petitioner was guilty of concealment of facts. He urged that he has misled the Court and swore false affidavit when he stated on oath that it was the first writ petition before this Court and that he had not filed another petition on same facts for same relief. The learned counsel pointed out that petitioner had filed Mukhbeer Singh v. U. P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board/Commission and others, C.M.W.P. No. 38139 of 1999, challenging the appointment of Kunwar Lokendar Pal, respondent No. 6 who was appointed as regular Principal by the U. P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board/Commission on 15.4.1997. This Court dismissed this petition on 3.8.2000. The Special Appeal No. 496 of 2000 against this order was dismissed by the Division Bench on 29.9.2000. The learned counsel urged that the facts and relief sought in earlier petition and this petition being same, the petition is liable to be dismissed and the petitioner was liable to be prosecuted for swearing false affidavit and misleading this Court. (4.) From the records of Mukhbeer Singh v. U. P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board/Commission and others, C.M.W.P. No. 38139 of 1999, dismissed on 3.8.2000 and the order in Special Appeal No. 496 of 2000 dated 29.9.2000 it is clear that the earlier petition was filed by the petitioner and he was aggrieved by selection of respondent No. 6. The second relief claimed in the present writ petition is almost the same as relief (b) in the earlier writ petition. The petitioner did not disclose this fact in the writ petition. The affidavit was sworn on 19.11.2000. The petitioner did not disclose that he had filed an earlier writ petition before this Court and it was dismissed. It has been stated in paragraph 1 of the writ petition that this is the first writ petition before this Court and on similar facts and for the same relief, no other petition has been filed before this Court. This is not only incorrect, but untrue. In my opinion, the petitioner deliberately concealed this fact to mislead this Court. He is guilty of swearing false affidavit. He is, therefore, liable to be prosecuted. (5.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the earlier writ petition was on a different cause of action, therefore, this petition is maintainable. The Apex Court in G. K. Dudani and others v. S. D. Sharma and others, AIR 1986 SC 1455, has held that even though the provision of Civil Procedure Code do not apply to writ petition, but principle of res judicata are applicable to writ petitions. Therefore, it was not permissible for the petitioner to file one writ petition on one ground, then another writ petition on another ground. Moreover, the records of both the writ petitions reveal that both the writ petitions are same. Apart from the principle of res judicata, this petition is not maintainable under Chapter XXII, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court. Since the petitioner has concealed material facts from this Court, and made declaration which he knew was not true, he has committed offence of giving false evidence. In the circumstances while dismissing the petition, it is necessary to issue, following directions : (1) The Registrar General, High Court, Allahabad shall initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioner by lodging report/ complaint before the appropriate authority against the petitioner. (2) The Committee of Management, R.R. Inter College, Pilakhwa, district Ghaziabad, shall suspend the petitioner and initiate disciplinary proceedings against him in accordance with law. (3) Office is directed to send certified copy of this order within three days to Registrar General, High Court, Allahabad, Manager, Committee of Management, R.R. Inter College, Pilakhwa, district Ghaziabad, District Inspector of Schools, Ghaziabad, for compliance of this order. (6.) Subject to the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is dismissed.

Already A Member?