The applicant challenged the selection process under taken on 11/8/2010 as per notified Rules 2010 on grounds of malafide , by filing an OA before Central Administrative Tribunal .and upon challenge to the process being contrary to RR 2010 appointment, of recommended candidate was not approved by the Appointment committee of cabinet directing that Recruitment rules were required to be amended ( to suit the recomended candidate) . The rules were amended as Recruitment Rules 2013. by removing the clause relating to deemed promotion of departmental candidate . The vacancy notification based on RR 2013 was issued. The applicant challenged the applicability of RR 2013 to the vacancy pertaining to year 2010 (Y.V._Rangaiah_And_Ors._vs_J._Sreenivasa_Rao_And_Ors._on_24_March,_1983)_ The CAT dismissed the OA holding that since appointment of recommended candidate was not approved challenge to selection process was in-fructous . THe Tribunal also refused to stay the selection process initiated on the basis of RR 2013 by holding that RR 2010 were not approved by DoPT. It further held that selection provess under taken on 14/8/2014 was correct. A review petion was filed challnging that RR 2010 were not required to be approved by DoPT and that RR 2013 were also approved in the same manner. It was also on record that one candidate was appointed in 2010 on the basis of RR 2010. It was further pointed that CAT exceeded its jurisdiction as it was not in the pleadings of either party that DOPT approval was required. The applicant has not callanged the selection provess of 2014 but has challanged the selection process on 2010. The CAT deismiised the RA by holding that it amounted to reargument of the case which was beyond the scope of RA. The applicant challanged the Judgemnt in High court which is pending final hearing. The applicant by another OA challanged the virus of Rules of 2013 being contrary to mandate of the constitution and order passed by the Apex court in earlier litigation of 2002 betwwen the same parties and prayed to the court for testing the virus of RR 2013 as primary relief and secondary relief sounght was to annul the order based on RR 2013. The CAT demised the OA in judicila dishonestry by overllong order passed by apex court in 2002 and based on conjuctures and surmises held that RR 2013 as it related to appointment of recomended candidate were not contrary to statute and further held that selction of remonded candiadate based on RR 2013 was already held to be in order. The applicant never cannnged the selection process in either of the OA. Order of CAT is challenged in high court admitted on merit and awaiting final hearing. Upon a complaint made to the CBI regarding obtaing appointment on the basis of Forged certificate of Ph.D degree The CBI submitted its report and recomended prosecution of selected candiadate under IPC 420, 467 and 471 . The Respondent desroyed the fake certificate ( Ph.D in environment)and replaced
The pvt Respondent destroyed the fake certificate ( Ph.D in environment)and replaced it with yet another forged certificate Ph.D in subject Botany in 2015. The applicant preferred a third OA challenging that Respondent obtained appointment on the basis of Forged certificate and ithe new certificate is subject Botany whereas the requirement of essential academic qualification of RRs 2013 was a degree in subject environment. The CAT dismissed the OA without hearing it on merit holding that it a case of Rus judicata. by pointing out that in ist OA appointment of RR 2013 was already decided on grounds A,B,C and the applicant canot challenge it on grounds XYZand imposed a cost of Rs 10000/ for repetitive litigation on same order of appointment. It is the case of the Applicant that he never challged the Appointment order of 2014 in OA of 2013 , it was the CAT which suomoto without therebeing any pleadings declared appointment of private Respondent as valid. Secondly in second OA applicant challanged Vitus of RR 2013 as primary relief and as consequential relief all orders of appointment based on RR 2013 including pvt respondent . The petition made to high court under Article 227 was dismissed by enhancing the cost to Rs 50000/ by holding that in fist OA CAT has validated the order of 2014 suomoto and in 2nd OA it was not consequential relief but ADDITIONAL RELIEF. The court also refused to entertain the orders passed by apex court that RUS judicata shall not operate in cases where subsequently it was established that appointment obtained was by method of Forgery and cheating as there cant be estoppel against the law. PL ADVICE if I could appeal in Supreme court. ???
you can appeal to SC against HC order
2) the Sc has held resjudicata would not operate in case appointment was obtained by fraud
3)parties who are guilty of fraud cannot be allowed to enjoy the fruits of such a decree and the court cannot remain a mute spectator once the fraud is apparent.
1. Since the destruction of PHD certificate with replacement with a new one is a subsequent fact , it gives rise to fresh cause of action .
2. In other words if this event did not occur when the initial OA was filed then subsequently on the basis of fresh cause of action a new OA can very well be filed.
3. So decision of the CAT dismissing the OA on the ground of res jusdicata is not based on sound principle pf law an hence is liable to be set aside if challenged before the high court.
All the best.
Sir you can appeal to supreme court against order of HC. If fraud is apparent then parties are not entitled to benefits of decree of court and supreme court has stated that res judicata will not be applicable when appointment is obtained by fraud.
Show all orders.
Yes there can be appeal to supreme Court and it is very well settled principle by SC that the res judicata shall not apply on cause of action that has arisen after the first suit, so on subsequent cause of action a fresh suit can be there therefore the Hon'ble CAT and High court has miserable failed to appreciate the fact that the cause of action of present OA was afresh as subsequently it was established that the appointment was based on fraud and forgery,
Res judicata means "a matter that has been adjudicated by a competent court and therefore may not be pursued further by the same parties."
Ave you filed a case for revision? If not then you can.
The decision by CAT is being challenged before high court in a writ petition.
Since the case is in the final stage i.e., verdict awaited, you may wait until then for initiating further action, if necessary after the verdict is pronounced.
The justification you have given is pertaining to your grievances however it appears that you have not handled the cases properly in CAT or high court.
Taking up an appeal before supreme court may not improve the judgment given by high court or the CAT, hence you may decide about further appeal before supreme court is worth while or not.
ADv T kalaiselvan pl re consider the following: on application of Res judicata. private respondent obtained appointment by playing fraud claiming to have degree in subject environment in 1986 by alteration in certificate where as he had degree in subject BOTANY awarded to him in 1987 as per evidence brought on record by the CBI The Tribunal fell into grave error of law for having passed the order Without deciding the MA filed in ….read with section 340 of IPC for resorting to false hood in pleading by the Respondents, The High court failed to appreciate that the respondents pleaded false and obtained the judgment from the Tribunal as well as by the High court which suffered from doctrine of per-incuriam 1.7. Without appreciating the law as enunciated by the apex court in Krishna Hare Gaur vs. Vinod Kumar Tyagi and others reported as (2015) 11 SCC 355 Para 15 When the appointment is made de hors the rules, the same is a nullity. In such an eventuality, the statutory bar like doctrine of res judicata is not attracted. In the case of Meghmala & Ors. Vs. G. Narasimha Reddy & Ors.[1], this Court held as under:- "From the above, it is evident that even in judicial proceedings, once a fraud is proved, all advantages gained by playing fraud can be taken away. In such an eventuality the questions of non-executing of the statutory remedies or statutory bars like doctrine of res judicata are not attracted. Suppression of any material fact/document amounts to a fraud on the court. Every court has an inherent power to recall its own order obtained by fraud as the order so obtained is non est." Since respondent No.1 obtained appointment on the basis of bogus certificates, in our considered view, the principle of res judicata will not be attracted to the case on hand PL Help in giving reasons why apex court may not improve the judgment in such direct identical case already decided by the Apex court
The ratio of decision does not have an blanket applicability and every decision is passed taking into consideration of its own unique fact situation.
So to determine whether the decisions you have cited apply in your case to thwart the applicability of res judicata the contents of petitions and judgement is to be perused in full.
Otherwise mu reply remains same.
SC would pass order in your favour as resjudicata does not operate in case of fraud
The principle settled by the supreme court in above mentioned cases apply on facts stated by you herein the supreme.court may appreciate your argumemts. Also the decision and pleading before the CAT and high court has to be seen in detail tk reach at conclusion but if there is apparent fraud by the defendant and same was not appreciated in decision of CAT and High Court when pleaded before them than Supreme Court shall decide matter on above principle.
In the case of res judicata, the matter cannot be raised again, either in the same court or in a different court. A court will use res judicata to deny reconsideration of a matter.
The doctrine of res judicata is a method of preventing injustice to the parties of a case supposedly finished, but perhaps also or mostly a way of avoiding unnecessary waste of resources in the court system. Res judicata does not merely prevent future judgments from contradicting earlier ones, but also prevents litigants from multiplying judgments, and confusion.
Since respondent No.1 obtained appointment on the basis of bogus certificates, in our considered view, the principle of res judicata will not be attracted to the case on hand
What you say has not been proved before court, at least as per the opinion and judgment delivered by CAT.
The high court will not go beyond the findings of CAT to some extent until and unless there is a gross violation of law of land.
You may file a petition with a different cause of action which is not relevant to this settled case, is there any loop hole to approach court from a different angle ?
You can very well appeal in Supreme Court as per your present circumstances of the case.
