Doctrine Of Finality Of Adjudication Of A Case Overpowers Accuracy/ Correctness Of A Judgment: Allahabad High Court

While refusing to quash an 11-year-old judgement in review, the Allahabad High Court held that a judgment which has attained finality cannot be treated lightly by the Courts. The Court observed that the doctrine of finality of adjudication of a case often overpowers the accuracy or correctness of a judgment.

The bench comprising of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad held

“Almost eleven years have passed since the impugned order came to be pronounced more than a decade ago. Finality attached to the judgements and orders passed by a Court is not a matter to be triffled with. It is not an assumption available under the Constitution that all judgements of the Courts would be correct on all counts. Yet, for functionality to exist and order to prevail, the doctrine of finality of adjudication often eclipses or over powers concerns or considerations that otherwise exist in favour of accuracy or correctness of judgements.”

In 2013, the writ Court had directed the State Government to ensure payment of non-practising allowances to all the Medical Officers including the petitioners whose services are governed by 1953 Rules, including Ayurvedic, Allopathic and Homeopathic Medical Officers. In 2014, a Special Leave Petition against the order of the writ Court was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

Subsequently, non-practising allowance was granted to the private respondents who were practitioners of Ayurvedic medicine not holding MBBS degrees or BDS or LSMF (LMP) diplomas. They were not registered by the Indian Medical Council/Indian Dental Council and were holding any post for which an MBBS degree or BDS or LSMF (LMP) diploma was an essential qualification.

Counsel for private respondents argued that another dispute arose between the parties from the date on which the non-practising allowance was paid to the private respondents. Another round of litigation was concluded in 2021 with Supreme Court upholding the order of the High Court in favour of the private respondents.

The Court observed that in facts of the case “the applicants claim to have woken up from deep slumber to realise that in absence of compliance of Rule 4 of the U.P. Government Doctors (Allopathic) Restriction on Private Practice Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'), neither the private respondents nor other doctors who did not hold MBBS degree or BDS or LSMF (LMP) diploma or who were not registered with Indian Medical Council/Indian Dental Council or who were not holding a post for which MBBS degree or BDS or LSMF (LMP) diploma was an essential qualification, were not eligible to claim benefit of the Rules and thus non-practising allowance.”

The Court observed that despite the best resources available to it, the State had failed to take this argument at any stage in several rounds of litigation where it lost. The Court observed that the State is acting solely based on the writ petition filed by Homeopathic Doctors in 2022 due to the denial of benefits to them.

Additional Advocate General appearing for the State supported the review application on grounds that the present Government could challenge the impugned order only when they were faced with the effects of it, i.e., the claim of benefits made by Homeopathic practitioners. It was argued that the order was based on a wrong reading of Rule 4 of the U.P. Government Doctors (Allopathic) Restriction on Private Practice Rules, 1983.

The Court held that since the judgment had been passed eleven years ago and had attained finality in the year 2014 through the order of the Supreme Court, a review petition at this stage cannot be filed or entertained by the Court. The Court held that the explanation for the delay in filing the review was “nothing more than an eyewash, in law.”

“Archival judgements are not to be dug out to test their correctness or to correct any error of law that may be claimed to exist in them.”

The Court further observed

“Once a proceeding is shown to have been contested fairly and squarely by the necessary parties, the finality of such adjudication must be maintained without excessive concern for the inconvenience that may be suffered by one or other party. More than that, in the case of the contesting State, we cannot make any exception to that Rule. State is a mammoth being of which citizen is a constituent cell.”

The Court held that no prejudice was shown to be caused to the State in implementing an order which was passed eleven years ago.

Dismissing the review application, the Court held that though the Court has the power to condone the extraordinary, inordinate and unexplained delay, on the merits of the case there was nothing which could compel the Court to disturb the finality attained by the judgment.

Case Title: Dr. Arvind Kumar And 3 Others v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 471 [CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 512 of 2023]

Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 471

Click Here To Read/Download Order