Mrs.Minnalkodi v. Mrs.S.Anjadevi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 30.11.2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K. SASIDHARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. VELMURUGAN W.A.Nos.209 and 218 of 2017 and CMP No.3444 of 2017 Mrs.Minnalkodi .... Appellant in both writ appeals -vs- Mrs.S. Anjadevi ... 1st respondent in WA No.209/2017 & 3rd respondent in WA No.218/2017 The District Collector, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore ... 2nd respondent in W.A.Nos.209 of 2017 & 1st Respondent in W.A.Nos.218/2017.

The Commissioner, Office of the Kammapuram Panchayat Union, Chidambaram Road, Kammapuram, Virudhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District ... 3rd respondent in WA No.209/2017 The Block Development officer (Block & Village Panchayat) Kammapuram Union, Virudhachalam Taluk Cuddalore District.

.... 2nd respondent in WA No.218/2017 Mrs.S. Anjadevi .... 3rd respondent in WA No.218/2017 PRAYER: Writ Appeal No.209 of 2017 filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order passed in W.P No.15110 of 2011 dated 31.01.2014.

Prayer in W.P. No 15110/2011:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the first respondent vide Proceedings No. Na.Ka.PD. 1/10868/2009 dated 24.02.2011 quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent herein to appoint the

me as Noon Meal Organizer at Panchayat Union Primary School , Melapalayur Village, Virudhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District. Writ Appeal No.218 of 2017 filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order passed in WP No.259 of 2016 dated 30.03.2016.

Prayer in W.P. 259/2016:

Calling for the records relating to the order dated 21.12.2015 in Na.Ka.BDI/4225/2011 of the 1st respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 herein to restore the appointment of the petitioner as Noon Meal Organizer in Panchayat Union Primary School , Keeramangalam Village ,Virudhachalam Taluk.

For Appellant :

Mr.Arun Anbumani ( in both Appeals) For R.1 in WA No.

:

Mr.G. Anabaya Chozhan 209/2017 & R.3 in WA No.218/2017 For R.2 in W.A.Nos.

209/2017 & R.1 in W.A.218/2017 :

Mrs.A. Srijayanthi appeals Spl.Govt. Pleader For.R.3 in WA No : Mr.P. Chinnadurai 209 of 2017 & R.2 in W.A.218/2017.

COMMON JUDGMENT K.K. SASIDHARAN,J.

These two intracourt appeals are directed against the common order dated 30 March 2016 in Review Petition (Writ) No.13 of 2016 and W.P.No.259 of 2016, dismissing the Review petition, filed by the appellant to review the Order dated 31 January, 2014 in W.P.No.15110 of 2011 and the subsequent writ petition in WP No.259 of 2016, challenging the order passed by the District Collector, cancelling her appointment on the basis of the order passed in WP No.15110 of 2011.

2.

The factual matrix indicates that the appellant was appointed as Noon Meal Organiser at Kammapuram Panchayat Union, Cuddalore. Her selection was challenged by the third respondent in W.A.No.218 of 2017 on the ground that she was not residing in the village and as such, her appointment was bad. 3.

The writ petition, filed by the third respondent in WA No.218 of 2017, challenging the appointment of the appellant was dismissed in WP No.11584 of 2011 dated 29 April, 2011. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, observed that she cannot claim any preference over the appellant herein based on the proximity of residence. The order dated 29 April, 2011 has become final.

4.

Thereafter, the third respondent in WA No.218 of 2017 filed another writ petition in WP No.15110 of 2011 challenging the appointment of the appellant. There was no appearance on behalf of the appellant herein before the Writ Court. The learned Single Judge, inspite of the earlier order passed in WP No.11584 of 2011 allowed the writ petition and directed the second respondent herein (The District Collector, Cuddalore District) and the third respondent in WA No.209 of 2017 (The Commissioner, Kammapuram Panchayat Union) to issue fresh notification. The third respondent in WA No.218 of 2017 was permitted to take part in the selection process pursuant to the notification.

5. The appellant filed a Review Petition in R.P.(Writ) No.13 of 2016. In the meantime, her appointment was cancelled by the District Collector by order dated 21 December, 2015. The said order was challenged by the appellant before the writ Court in WP No.259 of 2016. The learned Single Juge took up both the review petition and the writ petiton and by order dated 30 March, 2016 dismissed both the proceedings initiated by the appellant. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has come up with these intracourt appeals.

6.

The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition in W.P.No.11584 of 2011, filed by the third respondent in WA No.218 of 2017, observed that she cannot claim any preference over the appellant herein based on the proximity of residence. The learned Single Judge subsequently and without reference to the earlier order passed on 29 April, 2011 in W.P.No.11584 of 2011, allowed the writ petition in W.P.No.15110 of 2011 by order dated 31 January 2014 and quashed the appointment of the appellent. According to the learned counsel, in view of the order passed in WP No.11584 of 2011, the learned Single Judge ought to have dismissed the subsequent writ petition viz., W.P.No.15110 of 2011.

7.

We have also heard the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the second respondent, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for Kammapuram Panchayat Union and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent in W.A.No.218 of 2017.

8. The third respondent in WA No.218 of 2017 initially filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.11584 of 2011, challenging the appointment of the appellant, primarily on the ground that she was not residing in the village, in question. In short, proximity of residence of the appellant was put in issue by the third repsondent. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by order dated 29 April, 2011. The third respondent for the reasons best known to her, failed to file any appeal against the said order. Thereafter, she has filed a fresh writ petition in WP No.15110 of 2011, once again, challenging the order dated 24 February 2011 of the District Collector, the second respondent herein, which was the subject matter in W.P.No.11584 of 2011. The learned Single Judge, without discussing the merits or otherwise of the earlier order of dismissal of the writ petition, allowed the writ petition in WP No.15110 of 2011 and quashed the appointment of the appellant.

9. The grounds taken by the third respondent in the subsequent writ petition in WP No.15110 of 2011 ought to have been taken in the earlier round of litigation. In case, those grounds were not taken and the writ petition was ultimately dismissed, such grounds are deemed to have been rejected.

10. The second writ petition in WP No.15110 of 2011, filed by the third repsondent, is legally not maintainable in view of the order passed in WP No.11584 of 2011. Though the appellant filed a review petition, the issues raised therein, were not considered. The District Collector, Cuddalore, pursuant to the order passed in WP No.15110 of 2011, quashed the appointment of the appellant.

11. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents and perusing the materials available on record, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge was not correct in entertaining the subsequent writ petition i.e., W.P.No.15110 of 2011 for the very same relief. In fact, the very same contention, taken by the third respondent in WP No.11584 of 2011 was once again taken before the writ Court in WP No.11510 of 2011.

12. It is trite that judicial proceedings should come to a

finality at one point of time. It would not be legally permissible to file writ petition, one after another, even with new contentions. The subsequent writ petition filed by the third respondent is barred by the principal of res judicata. This aspect was not considered by the learned Single Judge. We are therefore of the view that the appellant must succeed.

13. In the result, the order dated 30.03.2016 in Review Petition (Writ) No.13 of 2016 and WP No.259 of 2016 are set aside. The writ petition filed by the third respondent in WP No.15110 is dismissed. The District Collector passed an order consequent to the order in WP No.15110 of 2011 and the same is also set aside.

14. We allow the intracourt appeals. No costs. Consequently, connected CMP is closed.

15. Since we have quashed the order passed by the District Collector, cancelling the appointment of the appellant as Noon Meal Organiser, necessarily a fresh order should be passed by the Collector restoring the status-quo ante.

-s/d- Assistant Registrar(CS-IV) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar sr/svki To 1.The District Collector, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore 2.The Commissioner, Office of the Kammapuram Panchayat Union, Chidambaram Road, Kammapuram, Virudhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District

3. The Block Development officer (Block & Village Panchayat) Kammapuram Panchayat Union, Virudhachalam Taluk Cuddalore District.

+2 Ccs to Mr. Arun Anbumani, Advocate sr 84918. +2 Ccs to MR.P. Chinnadurai, Advocate sr 84810 & 85586. +1 CC to Govt. Pleader sr 85864.

W.A.Nos.209 and 218 of 2017 SP(12/01/2018)