TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o man should be vexed twice for the same cause); (b) Interest republicae ut sit finis litium (it is in the interest of the state that there should be an end to a litigation); and (c) Re judicata pro veritate occipitur (a judicial decision must be accepted as correct). The four elements of res judicata-a black letter law- are as follows: (a) the parties are identical or in privity; (b) the judgment in the prior action was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (c) the prior action was concluded by a final judgment on the merits; and (4) the same claim or cause of action was involved in both actions. Though Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure consecrates this common law principle as a statutory mandate, it incontrovertibly applies to public law remedies, too, apart from civil disputes. The Courts have held that even the public interest litigation falls within its mischief and its enforcement demands vigil. Illustratively stated, on a common issue two rival contenders, let us assume, take out independent legal proceedings before a court of law. The court, we further assume, allows one and dismisses the other. The aggrieved party files one appeal. Though the init ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liminary issue first and to consider the merits of the matter-if the lis could survive the preliminary objection-thereafter, we touch upon the factual controversy only to the extent necessary. 4. There are four protagonists to this litigation, one of them joined by the Manager of the School: (1) E. P.Sajithkumar, (2) Nisha M.Nair (both having a common cause); (3) K. Rajitha, and (4) E.V.Latha. We will take the pleadings of E.P.Sajithkumar in W.P. (C) No. 8287 of 2012 as the basis for our discussion. Facts in Brief as Pleaded by E.P. Sajithkumar: 5. In Ackiparamba UP School, during the academic year 2002-03, the sanctioned posts were 14-9 UPSAs (Headmaster included) and 5 LPSAs. In 2002 one LPSA post and one UPSA post fell vacant owing to the retirement of two teachers. On 05.06.2002 E.P.Sajithkumar, a rule 51A claimant because of his earlier stint, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in one of the retirement vacancies; Smt.Nisha M.Nair was appointed on 21.06.2002 in the other post. Sajithkumar claims to have been appointed as an LPSA. In 2005 a UPSA retired from the service and E.V.Latha was appointed on 01.06.2005 in that vacancy. Later, because of one retirement a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent strength. As Sajithkumar was a UPSA, the benefit of revised students-teacher ratio was extended to him, and Rajitha, an LPSA, was retrenched. Later, in the academic year 2010-11, one UPSA and two LPSA posts were reduced owing to the shortage of student strength. Sajithkumar could get the benefit of 1:40 ratio for that year, too, as a UPSA. 11. There was no vacancy in LP section when Sajithmumar was appointed in 2002; so his appointment was as a UPSA. He has a degree with B.Ed., and is qualified to be appointed only as a UPSA. Since there was a chance of reduction of the UPSA post, Sajithkumar pleaded before the DDE and DPI to reckon him as an LPSA so he can avoid any retrenchment in future. 12. In the course of time, Sajithkumar filed WP (C) No. 33958/09 and invited a judgment, though which this Court required the Government to consider the matter. The Government, accordingly, issued Exhibit P4, reckoning the petitioner as LPSA w.e.f 05.06.02. The Government s Order was based on the reports of DDE and AEO and the statements of Sajithmumar and the Manager. What has not been disclosed by any of them is that Smt. Savithri, in whose retirement vacancy Sajithkumar was appoint ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ermit him to continue as an LPSA; to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to implement Exhibit P9 Government Order. The Findings in the Impugned Common Judgment: 14. After an elaborate consideration, the learned Single Judge, after examining the summoned original records, acknowledges that there had been interpolations in Sajithkumar s service record-but the interpolation was said to be to his advantage. The observation (in para 14) is to the effect that Sajithkumar s claim, as noticed, is based on the DDE s enquiry report. Admittedly, Sajithkumar holds a B.Ed., while Latha holds a TTC. Though earlier both TTC and B.Ed. holders could be appointed as LPSAs or UPSAs, the situation stood altered in 2000. By G.O.(P) No.188/2000/G.Edn. dated 8.6.2000, Rule 4(1) of Chapter XXXI of KER was amended; as a result, the B.Ed. holders were not to be appointed as LPSAs, thenceforth. 15. The contention that a Rule 51A claimant is entitled to be appointed as an LPSA de hors the qualification in TTC is specious. The reliance in Ext.P8 report on the two Government letters, according to the learned Single Judge, is unsound and fallacious. Essentially the Gover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ut sit finis litium (it is in the interest of the state that there should be an end to a litigation); and (c) Re judicata pro veritate occipitur (a judicial decision must be accepted as correct). 21. The four elements of res judicata-a black letter law- are as follows: (a) the parties are identical or in privity; (b) the judgment in the prior action was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (c) the prior action was concluded by a final judgment on the merits; and (4) the same claim or cause of action was involved in both actions. 22. Though Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure consecrates this common law principle as a statutory mandate, it incontrovertibly applies to public law remedies, too, apart from civil disputes. The Courts have held that even the public interest litigation falls within its mischief and its enforcement demands vigil. 23. In Sheoparsan Singh v. Ramnandan Prasad Singh (1916) 3 LW 544 the Privy Council has observed that res judicata is an ancient doctrine of universal application and permeates every civilized system of jurisprudence. This doctrine encapsulates the basic principle in all judicial systems which provide that an earlier ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
