High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Jagdish v. State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-13718-2006  RD-P&H 4545 (20 July 2006)
Civil Writ Petition No. 13718 of 2005
Date of Decision 27.7.2006
State of Haryana & others
CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI
Present: None for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. D.A.G. Haryana,
for the respondents.
M.M. KUMAR, J. (Oral)
The petitioner has been working as part-time Sweeper with the respondents since 1985. He appears to have abandoned the job w.e.f. 20.7.2004. The stand of the respondents is that he has also filed a civil suit in the Civil Court at Palwal, for declaration with C.W.P. No. 13718 of 2005
consequential relief seeking regularisation of his service. The Civil Suit bearing No. 292 of 8.8.1990, seeking the relief of regularisation was dismissed on 6.11.1996. A copy of the judgment has been placed on record as Annexure R-1. The appeal has also been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, vide his order dated 11.8.1998 (R-2). The aforementioned order has attained finality, therefore, it has been urged by the respondents that no new writ petition seeking the same relief could be filed. Moreover a preliminary objection has been raised that the aforementioned facts have been suppressed by the petitioner.
Having perused the record, we are of the view that the instant petition is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground of suppression of material facts, inasmuch as, the petitioner has failed to disclose filing of earlier suit and its dismissal by the Civil Court. The order of the Civil Court has also been upheld by the Appellate Court and it has attained finality. It is well settled that suppression of material facts in order to obtain notice of motion is itself constitute a valid ground for dismissal of a writ petition. The aforementioned principle has been laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Chiranji Lal v. Financial Commissioner, 1978 PLR 582. Even on merit, the petitioner cannot be considered to have acquired indefeasible right to the post because nothing has been placed on record to show that he was appointed by any legal mode of appointment i.e. advertising the post and then considering the competing claims of all the eligible candidates. The judgment of the C.W.P. No. 13718 of 2005
Constitution Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & others v. Umadevi & others, (2006) 4 SCC 1, has made these principles absolutely clear. We have also considered the submissions made in similar matter in our judgment rendered in the case of Rajinder Kumar v. State of Haryana and others (C.W.P. No. 7563 of 2005, decided on 25.4.2006). Therefore, on merit also the petitioner has no case.
In view of above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.
July 27, 2006 JUDGE
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.