NEELIMA SRIVASTAVA versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 8 S.C.R. 167 · Decided: 17-08-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. ABDUL NAZEER · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
167
NEELIMA SRIVASTAVA
v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4840 of 2021)
AUGUST 17, 2021
[S. ABDUL NAZEER AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Service law: Regularisation of service – Entitlement to –
Appellant appointed as temporary Music Teacher on a leave
vacancy – Appointment was to last till the permanent incumbent
re-joined the service – Incumbent employee never returned and
the appellant continued in service from 1984 to 2021 – In between,
the terms of the appointment order were modified by providing that
the appointment was to last till the regular incumbent joined back
or 20.05.1986, whichever was earlier and order was issued
dispensing with the services of the appellant, however, the High
Court stayed the operation of the said order – Appellant then sought
regularisation in accordance with the Regularisation Rules but no
action taken – Writ petition by the appellant – Single Judge held
that the appellant would continue on her post and her case shall be
considered for regularization – Said judgment attained finality –
Subsequently, appellant’s claim for regularization rejected –
Appellant filed another writ petition before the High Court, wherein
the Single Judge allowed her writ petition holding that since the
earlier order of the Single Judge attained finality, refusal to apply
Regularisation Rules, 2001 was unlawful – In terms thereof, the
State regularised services of the appellant – In appeal, there against,
the Division Bench held that since the appellant continued on the
post on the basis of the interim order passed by the High Court in
earlier round of litigation, her appointment is litigious appointment
and thus she had no enforceable right to hold the post legally – On
appeal, held: Appointment of the appellant can only be construed
as irregular and not illegal – Rejection of her claim for
regularization on the ground of her appointment being illegal is
patently erroneous – Judgment which attained finality crystallized
the right of the appellant for regularization – It is not permissible
for the parties to re-open the concluded judgments of the Court as
the same tantamounts to an abuse of the process of the Court and
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 167
167
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
168
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
has far reaching adverse effect on the administration of justice –
Further, 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 – Thus, the judgment passed by the Division Bench not
sustainable and set aside – Appellant entitled to be regularised with
all consequential benefits.
Judgment/Order:
Over-ruling a principle and reversal of the judgment –
Explanation of – Held: There is a distinction between the two –
Judgment itself has to be assailed and got rid of in a manner known
to or recognized by law – Mere over-ruling of the principles, on
which the earlier judgment was passed, by a subsequent judgment
of higher forum will not have the effect of uprooting the final
adjudication between the parties and set it at naught – Mere over-
ruling of the principles by a subsequent judgment will not dilute the
binding effect of the decision on inter-parties.
Re-opening of a concluded judgment – Permissibility of –
Held: It is not permissible for the parties to re-open a concluded
judgment of the Court – It may tantamount to an abuse of the process
of the Court and also have far reaching adverse effect on the
administration of justice.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Applying the tests laid down in *State of
Karnataka & Ors. vs. M.L. Kesari & Ors. the appointment of the
appellant can only be construed as irregular and not illegal. The
finding recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court in
respect of nature of the appointment of the appellant being illegal
is thus not liable to be sustained. Her rejection of the claim for
regularization on the ground of her appointment being illegal by
the impugned order is patently erroneous. The other condition
of having worked for 10 years or more also stands fully satisfied
as the appellant at the time of consideration of her regularization
had completed almost 23 years of service. [Para 24][178-F-H;
179-A]
State of Karnataka & Ors. v. M.L. Kesari & Ors. (2010)
9 SCC 247 : [2010] 9 SCR 543 – relied on.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
169
1.2 Writ Petition No. 3316 (SS) of 1986 filed by the appellant
before th

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