B.Velmurugan v. The Secretary To Government
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.06.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU W.P.NO.1196 OF 2017 B.Velmurugan ... Petitioner .Vs.
1. The Secretary to Government, Home (Police III) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.
3. The Chairman, T.N. Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.
... Respondents PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to dispose of the representation of the Petitioner dated 19.12.2016 with regard to claim for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police under PSTM quota in the recruitment of Sub-Inspector (Men & Women) vide Notification No. 1/2015 and grant all consequential services and monetary benefits and grant such other further relief within time frame fixed by the Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Arumugavel For Respondents :
Mr.P.Kumaresan Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.P.Balathandayutham Special Government Pleader (for R1 & R2)
and M/s.D.Sowmi Dattan Standing Counsel (for R3)
O R D E R
Heard Mr.P.Arumugavel, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.P.Kumaresan, Learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.P.Balathandayutham, Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the First and Second Respondents and Ms.D.Sowmi Dattan, Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Third Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.
2. The Writ Petition has been filed for directing the Respondents to dispose the representation dated 19.12.2016 made by the Petitioner with regard to his claim for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police under PSTM quota in the recruitment of Sub-Inspector (Men & Women) by Notification No.1/2015 and grant all consequential services and monetary benefits.
3. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the Respondents has brought to notice that the Petitioner had earlier challenged his non-selection to the same post in the Writ Petition in W.P. No. 23075 of 2015, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of the Court by order dated 03.11.2015 and has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by order dated 05.09.2016 in Special leave to Appeal (C) No. 224 of 2016 and thereafter, Review Application No. 40 of 2018 filed by the Petitioner was rejected by order dated 12.07.2019 and copies of the said orders have been placed on record.
4. At this juncture, reference must be made to the effects of finality of litigation as deduced from the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M.Nagabhushana -vs- State of Karnataka [(2011) 3 SCC 408] and Union of India -vs- Major S.P.Sharma [(2014) 6 SCC 351], which can be summarized as under:- (a) The doctrine of finality of litigation is an outcome of two age old salutary principles of public policy, viz., interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium which signifies that it is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation, and the other principle, viz., nemo debet bis vexari, si constat curiae
quod sit pro una et eademn causa conveys that no one ought to be vexed twice in a litigation if it appears to the Court that it is for one and the same cause. One important consideration of public policy is that the decisions pronounced by courts of competent jurisdiction should be final, unless they are modified or reversed by appellate authorities or by adopting a procedure prescribed by law. The other principle is that no one should be made to face the same kind of litigation twice over, because such a process would be contrary to considerations of fair play and justice. In the absence of such principle, great oppression might result under the colour and pretence of law in as much as there will be no end of litigation and a resourceful and malicious litigant may succeed in infinitely vexing his opponent by repetitive suits and actions. This may compel the weaker party to relinquish his right. The universally acclaimed rule of res judicata has been evolved to prevent such anarchy.
(b) The rule of res judicata is common to all civilized system of jurisprudence to the extent that a judgment after a proper trial by a court of competent jurisdiction should be regarded as final and conclusive determination of the questions litigated and should forever set the controversy at rest. That is why it is perceived that the plea of res judicata is not a technical doctrine but a fundamental principle which sustains the Rule of Law in ensuring finality in litigation. This principle seeks to promote honesty and a fair administration of justice and to prevent abuse in the matter of accessing court for agitating on issues which have become final between the parties. Any proceeding which has been initiated in breach of the rule of res judicata is prima facie a proceeding which has been initiated in abuse of the process of Court.
(c) If a litigant has chosen to put his case in one way, he cannot thereafter bring the same transaction before the court, put his case in another way and say that he is relying on a new cause of action.
and have had decided as incidental to or essentially connected with subject-matter of the litigation and every matter coming into the legitimate purview of the original action both in respect of the matters of claim and defence. It also does not lose its authority merely because it was badly argued, inadequately considered and fallaciously reasoned. Such consequence follows both to an order from which an appeal lies but has not been preferred, as well as to an order from which no appeal is provided. This precept is referred in legal parlance as `constructive res judicata'. In a country governed by the Rule of Law, finality of judgment is absolutely imperative to which great sanctity is attached and it is not permissible for the parties to re-open the concluded judgments of the court as it would not only tantamount to merely an abuse of the process of the court but would have far reaching adverse affect on the administration of justice.
(d) It is an abuse of the process of the court and contrary to justice and public policy for a party to re-litigate the same issue which has already been tried and decided earlier against him. The re-agitation may or may not be barred as res judicata, but if the same issue is sought to be re-agitated, it also amounts to an abuse of the process of court. The court then has the power to stop such proceedings summarily and prevent the time of the public and the court from being wasted.
In view of this legal position, it is not possible to entertain this Writ Petition, which is prosecuted in abuse of the legal process.
In fine, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar gd
To 1.
The Secretary to Government, Home (Police III) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.
The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.
3.
The Chairman, T.N. Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.35934 W.P.NO.1196 OF 2017 MG(CO) PBS/24/06/2022