HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 70 of 200 1 Smt. Sumita oditelwar and others —Versus— State o Chhattisgarh and others T} P0$t for order on 5 January, 2%. dl S- Satish K. Agnihotri A" Judge 7 ”"’2;’1’1’2‘0‘O"6 ’ ’ ’ V f @g Writ Petition No. 70 of 2001 Petitioners Smt. Sumita Voditblwar, W/ o Shri Shrinivas Voditelwar, aged about 50 years, Head-Mastar. Smt. Usha Pandya, WI o Shri Ashok Pandya, aged about 50 yeaxe, Assistant Teacher. K11. Kunti Thakur, D/o Shri G.S. Thakur, aged about 50 years, Assistant Teacher. Smt. Sunita Soni, W/ o Shn' Satyendra Soni, aged about 4O years, Assistant Teacher. 1 I Respondents All posted and employedgifi’Shri Mahavir Jain Vidyalaya Shikshak Nagax, Burg-491 001 (C.G.). State of Chhattisgarh,through :- Secretaxy Department of Commerce and Industries, Secretan‘at Raipur (Chhatu'sgarh) Registiar, Firms and Societies Chhath'sgarh, Secretaliat,Raipur C.G.). District Education O$cer, Durg (Chhattisgarh) Shri Mahavir Jain Vidyalaya Bal Mandir, Shikshak Nagar, Durg Through :- Sectetary,Shri Jain Tarnn Club, Shikshak Nagar, Durg (Chhattisgarh). Shri Jain Tarun C1ub,Durg Chhattisgarh)(Regd. No. 1218 dated 25/ 11/ 1968)Through:- Secretaxy Shli Jain Tarun Club, Shikshak Nagar, Durg (Chhattisgarh). Singlegench : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Ayihotri, J. Mr. V. G. Tamaskar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Pankaj Shrivastava, Panel hwyer for Respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. P. Diwakar, Senior Advocate with Shri P. R. Patankar, Advocate for Respondents No. 4 and 5. HIGH COURT OF CHHATFISGARH AT BILASPUR ORDER whammy, 2006) The following ordeT of the Court was passed by Satish K. Agihotri J. 1. The present petiu'on has been_ $ed under Article 226 of the on 11.1.2001 seeking fellowing reliefs:— (I) that ihe Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the of oertwrcm 0r mandamus thereby quashlng the (II) That the Hon’ble Court be pteased to issue wnt and/or direction in me nature of prohibition prohibiting the respondents and each of them jiom giving ejj‘ect and/or That the Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue yet another writ of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to Consu'tution of India nature notice No 0/2000 dated 31/ 5/2000 Anneiure P 7 further e}?ect till disposal of this petition release arrears ofsalanes of the petitioners w ef March 2000 tiH date. (IV) That the Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue any other writ or writs, order or orders, &reMon of directions deemedfit That the. facts in nutshell axe that the petitioner No. 1 was appointed 1.7.1980 vide order dated 20.12.1980 (Annexure P! 2). The petitioner No.2 was appointed vide order dated 14.7. 1981 as Assistant Teacher (Annexure P] 3). The peh'tioner No.3 was appointed Ass1stant Teacher v1de order dated 2 7 1984 (Annexure P/4) and appomted as Ass1stant Teacher Vlde order dated 1 .7. 1986 (Annexune in the interest ofjustiae. " as Headmistress on pentloner No. 4 was P/5) by the Respondent No.5 in Shn' Mahaveer Jain Bal Mandir, Durg. The said appointments were approved by the District Education OECCr, Burg. Shri Mahaveer Jain Bal Mandir was admittedly getting 100% grants—in—aid from the Government. The erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh vide notidcation dated 31. 1.2000 mduced 1000A) grants-in-aid b 20°41 for the acadeic session 200- y m 0 k 2001 onwards. On 17.5.2000, the. Respondent No.5 Society too a decision to close Shri Mahaveer J Bal Mandir fmm the academic ain session 2000—2001 on account o reduction of grants in aid’ The- f Respondent No.5 acconiingly infomed to the District Education Ofncer about closer ofthe school. The services of the petitioners were terminated vide order dated 31.5.2000 Annexure P/7 and Annexure R-5/2. Being agglieved, the petitioners filed a it petition in tlte High Court of Judicature at Jabalpur being W.P.No. 6069/2000 praying for following reliefs:- (I) that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or mandamus thereby quashing the notice No. 0/2000 dated 31/ 5/2000 (H) That the Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ and/or direction in the nature of prohibition, prohibiting the respondents and each of them ham giving efect and/or farther ejfect, till disposal ofthis petition (III) v That the on’ble Court be pleased to yet another writ of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to release arrears ofsalaries of the petitioners w.e.f March 2000 till date. That the Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue any other writ or writs, order or orders, direction or directions deemedjit in the interest ofjustioe. " Pursuant to the Reorganization of the Sta of Madhya Pladesh, High te Court of Chhattisgarh ca into existence on 1. 11.2000 and the Writ Pen'tion No. 6069/2000 was ttansfened to this Court. This Court vide order dated 10. 1 1.2000 dismissed the writ pition wherein the same et relief was sought, as in the present petition, in the ollowing terms:— “The submissions of the teamed counsel for the petitioners are that despite release of the grant by the Stae Government, the management of the School is not makin ament of the salary to wr ' Annemre P 6. H me f t g py i them and the same instituh‘on on one side says that they have closed down but under some diferent pswdonymous they are still running the insiiiufz'on, therefore, they deserve a direction for payment of the salary to the petitioners. So far as the question regarding payment of the salaryis concerned, the petitioners have an alternative remedy available to them under the provisions of the MP. Ashaslciya Shikshan Sanstha (institutional Fund) Rules, 1983. From. the petition, it does not appear that the petitioners have invoked that provision before the District Education Oj$cen So far as the second part of the argument is concerned, this Court cannot take cognizance of a question relating to the disputed fact. The question whether the same institution is being run in zr’dtherent or epseudonymous cannot be decided under Article 226 or writ jurisdiction For that, the petitioners are still free to approach the properforum I find no reason to interfere in the petition The petition is dismissed " 5. The instant petition was filed on 1 1. 1.2001 for the same re]1'efs(supra). In the writ petition the petitioners have stated that the petitioners have made a statutory appeal under sech‘on 1 1 of the M.P. Ashaskeey Shikshau Sanstha (Sansthagat Nidhj) Adhiniyam, 1983 to the District Education O$cer (Annexure P/9). It is further stated that the petitioners Vide letter dated 1.12.2000 (Annexure P/ 10) had sent a Ieminder to the District Education Ohicer. The District Education Ohicer has failed to decide the appeal of the petitioner in time merefore this writ petition was hled for the same reliefs. 6. Shri Tamaskar, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the statutory appeal was coniined for non-payment of salaries of the petitioners and no appeal was available against the termination of services of the petitioners. Learned Single Judge of this Court while considering Writ Petition No. 6069/2000 tiled by these petitioners claiming same reliefs, had considered all the aspects before dismissing the petition, granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum. It was for the petitioners to approach the proper forum not for the courts to determine and decide which forum would be appmpriate. 7. Shn' Pn‘tjnkar Diwakar, learned Senior counsel with Shri P. R. Patankar, leaxned counsel, appearing for the Respondents No. 4 and 5, and Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, learned Panel lawyer appearing for the Respondents No. 1 to 3 have vehemently contended that this writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioners have tiled W.P. No. 6069/2000 for the same reliefs which has been distnissed by this Court on 10.11.2000. It was contended that the principles of res-judicata will be applicable as this Court has already decided the ,r lis between the parties and the petition was dismissed on merit. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the papers of this petition as well as the tile of W.P.No. 6069/ 2000, I am of the view that the principles of res-judicata would be attracted in this case. The same question was agitated before this Court in W.P.No. 6069/ 2000 which terminated into the dismissal of the writ petition with liberty to approach the appropriate forum. This Court cannot sit over or reconsider the same question which has attained hnality by earlier order dated 10.11.2000 passed in W.P.No. 6069/ 2005. It is well settled principle of law that the rule of res-judicata prevents the parties to a judicial determination from litigating the same question again and again even though the determination may he demonstrably wrong. The earlier proceedings have attained tinality and the parties are bound by the order passed by this Court While considering the same question seeking the same relief. 9. The Supreme Court in Rajendra Kumar Vs. Kalyan (dead) by‘ Lrs.1 2000(8) S.C.C. 99 held that : “The doctrine of res judicata or constructive res judicata predominantly is a principle of equity, good ‘ I w l conscignce and justice. It would neither he equitable nor fair not in accordance with the principles of justice that the issue concluded earlier ought to be permitted to be mised later in a diEeIent proceeding.” 10. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, when this petition was tiled on 11.1.2001 and was pending consideration before this Court for about five years, it is desirable in the interest of equity and justice that if any statutory appeal is pending consideration befoxe the -; authority, the same shall be considered and decided within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order. in the event, the petitioners have not approached any appropriate forum, the petitioners are granted liberty to approach the appropriate forum within a period of three weeks from today and in that case no limitation shall come in the way of approaching the forum. 11. For the reasons stated above, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ’i i i