Writ Petition cannot be filed to set aside judgment of the same High Court rendered in an earlier round of litigation ignoring the principles of res-judicata and doctrine of finality Supreme Court decision

Supreme Court in Neelima Srivastava Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. held that the Writ Petition cannot be filed collaterally to set aside the judgment of the same High Court rendered in an earlier round of litigation ignoring the principles of res-judicata and doctrine of finality. The appellant is a Post Graduate from Kanpur University and also holds the certificate of Sangit Prabhakar and Senior Diploma from the Prayag Sangit Samiti, Allahabad. On 23rd July, 1984 she was appointed as Assistant Music Teacher in Government Inter College on a leave vacancy as the regular incumbent went on leave without pay. The terms of the appointment order specified that the appointment was temporary and meant to last till the permanent incumbent re-joined the service. The educational qualifications of the appellant satisfied the requirements prescribed under the relevant service rules. Vide letter dated 16th May, 1986, the terms of the appointment order dated 23rd July, 1984 was modified by providing that the appointment was to last till the regular incumbent joined back or 20th May, 1986, whichever was earlier. It was further provided that the interim order shall automatically lapse on return of the permanent incumbent. It is undisputed fact that the respondents never undertook any steps for filling up the post and the appellant continued on the said post without any interruption till 2020. The learned court heard the submissions of both the parties and observed that, The Division Bench of the High Court proceeded as if it was hearing an appeal against the judgment dated 23rd January, 2006 of the learned Single Judge which had already attained finality. It also observed that nowhere has it been mentioned that hat service matters that stand concluded inter partes, ought to be re-opened. The court relied on the judgement in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. Wherein, “When a Judge deals with matters brought before him for his adjudication, he first decides questions of fact on which the parties are at issue, and then applies the relevant law to the said facts. Whether the findings of fact recorded by the Judge are right or wrong, and whether the conclusion of law drawn by him suffers from any infirmity, can be considered and decided if the party aggrieved by the decision of the Judge takes the matter up before the appellate Court.” Thus, Court observed that, “Thus, it is very well settled that it is not permissible for the parties to re-open the concluded judgments of the Court as the same may not only tantamount to an abuse of the process of the Court but would have far reaching adverse effect on the administration of justice.”