Renukambike R. and Ors. v. The State of Karnataka and Ors. - (High Court of Karnataka) (21 Jun 2017)

Principle of res judicata is applicable between two stages of same litigation but issue involved must have been decided at earlier stage of same litigation

MANU/KA/1424/2017

Constitution

In facts of present case, Applicants before KAT were candidates, who appeared for 2011, Karnataka Gazetted Probationers' Examination. They were selected as per select list issued by Karnataka Public Service Commission ('KPSC'). State Government vide Government Order dated 14th August, 2014, withdrew requisitions made by them to K.P.S.C. and ordered for closure of recruitment process of Gazetted Probationers for year 2011. Being aggrieved, Applicants challenged said Government Order before KAT. By order impugned, KAT allowed applications and quashed Government Order dated 14th August, 2014 and, further, directed State Government to issue appointment order to applicants in terms of Rule 11(3) of Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997. This Court vide an interim order dated 5th April, 2017, restrained Respondents from making any appointment in terms of order passed by KAT. Present application is with a prayer to vacate that portion of order dated 5th April, 2017, restraining authorities from issuing any orders of appointment.

Government Order challenged before the KAT, gives a clear indication that, said order was passed after having considered reports submitted by C.I.D. and opinion of learned Advocate General. Executive is a wing of Constitution. Having withdrawn selection process for reasons recorded in their order, it is imperative for Government to place material considered by them in taking a contrary stand before this Court. Selection is for posts of Gazetted Probationers, who on their appointment shall be working as Administrative Officers. A decision of Government, more particularly in a case of this nature, must be borne out on record and transparent. CID report makes a startling revelation that, interviews were conducted for sake of formality and marks were awarded at a later point of time.

Doctrine of res judicata is applicable between two stages of litigation. In case of Erach Boman Khavar Vs. Tukaram Shridhar Bhat and another held that, to attract doctrine of res judicata, it must be manifest that, there has been a conscious adjudication of an issue. A plea of res judicata cannot be taken aid of unless, there is an expression of an opinion on merits. It is well settled in law that, principle of res judicata is applicable between two stages of same litigation but question or issue involved must have been decided at earlier stage of same litigation.

Therefore, application I.A. No. X of 2017 to vacate interim order filed by State Government having been expressly rejected, present application, I.A. No. XI of 2017, which contains a similar prayer, is hit by doctrine of res judicata. Hence, same is not maintainable and High Court accordingly, dismissed the same.

Relevant : Erach Boman Khavar Vs. Tukaram Shridhar Bhat and another reported in .MANU/SC/1288/2013: (2013) 15 SCC 655

Tags : APPLICATION MAINTAINABILITY DOCTRINE RES JUDICATA