State Which Withdraws Special Appeal Is Bound By Findings Of Judgment It Challenged, Can't Re-Agitate Same Grounds: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that where the State gets its special appeal against a judgment dismissed as not pressed, it accepts the findings of that judgment and is barred from urging the same grounds again in later proceedings between the same parties. It held that an administrative order rejecting a claim on grounds already turned down by the Court amounts to sitting in appeal over...
The Allahabad High Court has held that where the State gets its special appeal against a judgment dismissed as not pressed, it accepts the findings of that judgment and is barred from urging the same grounds again in later proceedings between the same parties.
It held that an administrative order rejecting a claim on grounds already turned down by the Court amounts to sitting in appeal over the Court's judgment, a jurisdiction the authority does not have.
The Court set out five conditions for res judicata to be attracted in a subsequent proceeding: the matter must be directly and substantially the same as in the former proceeding; the former proceeding must have been between the same parties or those under whom they claim; the parties must be litigating under the same title in both; the Court which decided the former proceeding must have had jurisdiction to try the later one; and the matter must have been heard and finally decided on merits.
The bench of Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Sudhanshu Chauhan held,
“The State by getting Special Appeal No.65 of 2023 dismissed as not pressed has acquiesced to the finding of this Court in Writ-A No.5390 of 2022 and, thus, is estopped in law from raising those plea again.”
The U.P. Subordinate Services Selection Commission advertised 69 posts of Librarian under the Director, Technical Education, U.P., Kanpur in 2016, in the grade pay of Rs.2800/- in the pay band of Rs.5200-20,200/-. The qualification prescribed was graduation with a diploma in Library Science. The written examination was held on 28th July 2019. After the interview, the result was declared on 10th December 2021.
While the selection was underway, the All India Council for Technical Education framed Regulations in 2019 which upgraded the post from Group-C to Group-B and raised the qualification to a Master's degree in Library Science with a national level test. The State Government then framed the Uttar Pradesh Technical Education (Teaching) Service Rules, 2021, brought into force from 9th June 2021, and the U.P. Public Service Commission separately advertised 87 posts of Librarian in September 2021.
When no appointments followed, the selected candidates filed Writ-A No.5390 of 2022. By judgment dated 5th December 2022, a Single Judge held that the changed law had not been made applicable to the pending selection because no corrigendum was published, that the State had never withdrawn the requisition, and that the Commission was never authorised to cancel or modify it. The respondents were directed to grant appointments within a month, with liberty that if the authorities were of another view, a decision could be taken within the same time keeping in mind the observations made in the judgment.
The State's Special Appeal No.65 of 2023 against that judgment did not obtain any interim order. During contempt proceedings, the State passed an order dated 23rd March 2024 rejecting the claim to appointment. The writ petitions challenging that order were dismissed by a Single Judge on 30th July 2024, which gave rise to the present appeals.
When the matters were listed on February 9, 2026, the State got Special Appeal No.65 of 2023 dismissed as not pressed, on the footing that it had already passed an order in compliance with the 2022 judgment.
The Court observed that the parties and the cause of action in the earlier and the later writ petitions were the same, and the earlier petition had been heard and finally decided by a competent court which also had jurisdiction over the later one. Comparing the grounds urged before it with those recorded in the 2022 judgment, it held that every contention now advanced by the State had already been urged and repelled.
“The law is settled that an authority cannot sit in appeal or review the order passed by a competent Court. Perusal of the impugned order dated 23.03.2024 reveals that the said order amounts to sitting over in appeal against the judgement of learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.5390 of 2022 which jurisdiction the authorities do not have.”
On the State's plea that no post of Librarian in the old pay band survived because all posts stood upgraded, the Court held the plea was barred by constructive res judicata under Explanation IV to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure since it could have been but was not raised in the earlier writ petition. It also found no such pleading in the counter affidavit.
“The law is settled that Court cannot go beyond the reasons ascribed in the impugned order in denying a claim.”
Relying on Mohinder Singh Gill & Another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Others, in which the Supreme Court held that the validity of an order must be judged by the reasons stated in it and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons later, the Court noted that the order dated 23rd March 2024 had not rejected the claim on the ground of non-availability of vacancies at all. It further observed, from Serial No.6 of Appendix-II to the Rules, 2021, that Librarians recruited between 1996 and 2000 in diploma level institutions were to be considered for upgradation under the Career Advancement Scheme in the next higher grade of senior scale, which showed that existing Librarians were continuing and that the claim of wholesale upgradation was incorrect.
The Court disagreed with the Single Judge's reading that the liberty granted in 2022 left the State free to consider the claim afresh.
“The direction contained in paragraph no.44 of the earlier judgement dated 05.12.2022 of this Court cannot be segregated and has to be read as a whole. The perusal of paragraph no.44 discloses that though this Court permitted the authorities to take the decision if they were of other view, but also obligated the authority to take the decision in the light of observations made in the judgement.”
It held that the authorities could have rejected the claim on any other rational ground, but not on the grounds which the Court had already adjudicated upon and rejected. Since no stay was operating and the 2022 judgment had not been set aside when the later writ petition was heard, the Court held that its findings bound the parties in the subsequent proceedings and the Single Judge had no jurisdiction to annul them.
Accordingly, the judgment of the writ Court was set aside and both appeals were allowed, with a direction to grant appointment to the appellants on the post of Librarian in the pay band of Rs.5200-20200/- with grade pay of Rs.2800/- within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of the order.
Case Title: Kamal Nayan Singh and 9 others v. State of UP and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 561
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 561
Click Here To Read/Download Order