Read Time: 07 minutes

The Supreme Court on Tuesday, while setting aside a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, observed that it is not permissible for the parties to re-open the concluded judgments of the Court as the same may not only be tantamount to an abuse of the process of the Court but would have a far-reaching adverse effect on the administration of justice.

"In the end, a feeble attempt was made by the learned counsel for the State-respondent to persuade us not to interfere in the matter on the ground that the services of the appellant were terminated vide letter dated 19.05.1986 which was never challenged as such her services stood terminated. We are not ready to accept the proposition canvased by learned counsel for the respondent at this stage for the simple reason that it was open for the State to have advanced this contention before the learned Single Judge in the two Writ Petitions decided vide judgment and order dated 23.01.2006. Once this argument was never made before the learned Single Judge in the proceedings which has attained finality, the respondent cannot be permitted to raise this argument in this appeal," Court noted.

A bench of Justice S Abdul Nazeer and Justice Krishna Murari held that the appellant is entitled to be regularized with all consequential benefits, which may be extended to her within a period of three months from date of the Judgment.

The petition has been preferred by Neelima Srivastava, an Assistant Music Teacher in
Government Inter College, Mahmoodabad, District Sitapur who was appointed on a leave vacancy.

She had challenging an order of the Allahabad High Court setting aside the order of the single judge, which directed the respondent to regularize the services of the appellant.

The Allahabad HC order had said, "the appellant herein was appointed in leave vacancy on 23.07.1984 and her services came to an end on 20.05.1986 and she continued on the post on the basis of the interim order passed by the High Court in earlier round of litigation and her appointment is litigious appointment and thus she has no enforceable right to hold this post legally in her favour."

However, the apex court while applying the tests laid down in the State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. M.L. Kesari & Ors. observed that the appointment of the appellant can only be construed as irregular and not illegal. 

The Court further observed that 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.

"The Division Bench of the High Court proceeded as if it was hearing an appeal against the judgment dated 23.01.2006 of the learned Single Judge which had already attained finality. Appeal filed under the Rules of the Court was filed against the judgment dated 15.05.2014 rendered in Writ Petition No. 8597 of 2010. It is a well-settled principle of law that a Letters Patent Appeal which is in continuation of a 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," the bench noted.

Case Title: Neelima Srivastava Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.