KRISHNA HARE GAUR versus VINOD KUMAR TYAGI & ORS.

Citation: [2015] 2 S.C.R. 153 · Decided: 11-02-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. GOPALA GOWDA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015]2S.C.R.153 
KRISHNA HARE GAUR 
V. 
VI NOD KUMAR TYAGI & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1755 of 2015) 
FEBRUARY 11, 2015 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]. 
A 
B 
Res judicata - Principle of- Allegation that respondent 
no. 1 obtained appointment to the post of headmaster by 
using forged experience certificates along with application-
Challenge to, by the appellant-applicant- Dismissal of writ C 
petition as also writ appeal- Subsequently, on basis of the 
report by the District Magistrate, cancellation of respondent 
no. 1 's appointment - Writ petition by respondent no. 1 -
Dismissal by High Court- However, Special appeal allowed 
by the Division Bench holding that appellant's claim barred 0 
by the principle of res judicata - On appeal, held: When 
appointment is made dehors the Rules, the same is a nullity 
- In such an eventuality, the statutory bar like doctrine of res 
judicata is not attracted- Since respondent no.1 obtained 
appointment on the basis of bogus certificates the principle E 
of res judicata not attracted- Order passed by the Division 
Bench set aside- UP Recognized Basic Schools (Junior 
High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of 
Teachers) Rules, 1978- r. 4(2)(c). 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The Division Bench observed that the 
appellant did not disclose the dismissal of the earlier writ 
petition and also the Writ Appeal and thus, the second G 
writ petition challenging the appointment is barred under 
the principles of res judicata to c.hallenge the appointment 
of respondent No.1. From the materials on record, it 
emerges that respondent No.1 did not possess requisite 
153 
H 
154 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A experience of five years and his appointment is in 
contravention to Rule 4(2)(c) read with Rule 2(h) of the 
U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) 
{Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) 
Rules, 1978 and therefore, the appointment of 
8 respondent No.1 is not valid in law and the earlier Writ 
Appeal was dismissed mainly on the ground that the 
District Basic Education Officer recorded a finding that 
respondent No.1 has the requisite five years teaching 
experience. The Additional District Magistrate observed 
C that the District Basic Education Officer did not 
thoroughly conduct the inquiry, and therefore, dismissal 
of the earlier writ appeal cannot be taken as res judicata. 
[Para 14] [160-0-H; 161-A] 
o 
1.2 When the appointment is made dehors the rules, 
the same is a nullity. In such an eventuality, the statutory 
bar like doctrine of res judicata is not attracted. Since 
respondent No.1 obtained appointment on the basis of 
bogus certificates the principle of res judicata will not be 
E attracted to the instant case. Since the appointment of 
respondent No.1 is conditional that in the case of any 
concealment of facts, the approval is liable to be 
cancelled, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari rightly passed the 
order cancelling the appointment which was rightly 
F upheld by the Single Judge. The Division Bench was 
not right in setting aside the order of the Single Judge 
on the principles of res judicata and thus, the impugned 
order of the Division Bench is set aside. [Paras 15, 17] 
G 
H 
[161-A, E, G-H; 162-A-B] 
Meghmala & Ors. Vs. G. Narasimha Reddy & Ors. 2010 
(10) SCR 47: (2010) 8 SCC 383- referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
2010 (10) SCR 47 
Referred to. 
Para 15 
KRISHNA HARE GAUR v. VI NOD KUMAR TYAGI 
155 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. A 
1755 of 2015 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.05.2014 of the 
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 
1165 of 2012 
R. Balasubramanium, Jitin Chaturvedi, Mrinmayee Sahu 
for the Appellant. 
B 
S. R. Singh, M. R. Shamshad, Rajat Singh, Aditya 
Samaddar,Avnish Singh,AnkurYadav,Asha Gopalan Nair for C 
the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 
15.05.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at 
Allahabad allowing the Special Appeal No.1165/20 12 filed by 
respondent No.1 observing that the appellant's claim is barred 
D 
by the principle of res judicata. 
E 
3. Brief facts which led to the filing of this appeal are as 
under:- Vidyapati Junior High School, Jageshwar, 
Murshangate, Mahamaya Nagar, District Hathras, U.P., which 
is an aided and recognized Junior High School, issued an 
advertisement on 28.07.20

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.