IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11352 of 2011 Kumar Vimal S/o Sheopujan Singh r/o Chitrakut Nagar, Road No.3, P.S. Danapur, District Patna- 800012 .......Petitioner Versus 1. The Union Of India, Ministry of HRD Department of Education, Govt. of India, Shashtri Bhawan, New Delhi- 11001 through Commissioner, Navoday Vidyalaya Samiti, A-28 Kailas Colony, New Delhi (Earlier Indira Gandhi Stadium I.P. Estate New Delhi 110002. 2. Commissioner, Navoday Vidyalaya Samiti, A-28 Kailas Colony, New Delhi (Earlier Indira Gandhi Stadium I.P. Estate New Delhi 110002. 3. Dy Director / Dy Commissioner, Navoday Vidyalaya Samiti, A-28 Kailas Colony, New Delhi (Earlier Indira Gandhi Stadium I.P. Estate New Delhi 110002. ......Respondents ----------- 2 14-07-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The office has raised an objection regarding maintainability of this writ petition in the light of facts stated in paragraph 2, 2.1. 2.2 and 2.3 of the writ petition. 3. From the aforesaid paragraph the following facts stand admitted:- (i) The petitioner was terminated from service in a Navoday Vidyalaya in the year 2001. His appeal was dismissed in the year 2002. Those orders were challenged by the petitioner through O. A. No. 641/2002 2 before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench and the said O.A. was decided in favour of the petitioner on 5-1-2005. (ii) Against the direction to reinstate the petitioner the respondents filed a writ petition in this court bearing CWJC no. 11382 of 2005 which was allowed on 14-12-2009. The petitioner has described that order to be an ex parte order. (iii) The petitioner filed a petition for recall of that order bearing MJC no. 568/2010 which was dismissed on 11-3-2010. (iv) Against the aforesaid order of this court the petitioner filed Special Leave Petition No. 20585/2010 in the Supreme Court. Annexure P-1 dated 16-7-2010 shows that after condoning the delay the Apex Court dismissed the SLP. The petitioner preferred Civil Review Petition bearing No. 1923- 1924/2010 before the Apex Court. Annexure 3 P-2 shows that application for oral hearing was rejected and the review petitions were dismissed on 25-11-2010. 4. From the relief mentioned in paragraph 8 of the writ petition, it is clear that the petitioner is seeking to challenge the order dated 14-12-2009 whereby CWJC No. 11382/2005 was allowed in favour of respondents. 5. In our view, the office has rightly drawn our attention to the relevant facts which clearly show that against the earlier order of this court refusing to interfere with order dated 14-12-2009 the petitioner approached the Apex Court and lost. The matter has, thus, attained finality so far as this court is concerned. 6. On behalf of petitioner a judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhakra Beas Management Board Vs. Krishna Kumar Vij, (2010) 8 SCC 701 has been cited to submit that since the Special Leave Petitions and Review Petitions were dismissed in limine without assigning reasons, those orders have not merged with the order of this court and, hence, this court can re- decide the issue raised on behalf of the petitioner. It was 4 further submitted that those orders of the Apex Court do not amount to an order laying down law under Article 141 of Constitution of India and, therefore, they will not be of any significance in reconsidering the case of petitioner. 7. In our considered view, once a reasoned order passed by this court on 14-12-2009 has attained finality and petitions filed on behalf of the petitioner for setting aside that order on the ground that it was a decision without hearing the counsel have been rejected by this court without any interference by the Apex Court, such repeated petitions as present one cannot be entertained on merits because the lis has already been decided inter parties. Even without there being any merger between the order of this court and the Apex Court, the order of the Apex Court dismissing the Special Leave Petitions and Review Petitions cannot be ignored even it is not an order laying down law under Article 141 of Constitution of India. That order brings a finality to this lis. It has all the legal sanctity and value between the parties to the litigation. 5 8. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Shivaji Pandey, J.)