The Court held that once a direction has been passed upon the official respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner, there is no need to pass another similar direction by way of a fresh order. The Court dismissed the writ petition, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue the contempt proceedings already instituted against the official respondents.

The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking a direction upon the respondents to allow her to perform duties as Aaya, in terms of an engagement order. The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition, in which a direction was passed on 15.05.2026 calling upon the official respondent to pass an express order in writing with reasons about the status and fate of the petitioner's selection-cum-engagement, after hearing the petitioner as well as the private respondent.

The petition was heard by Justice Sanjay Dhar, who observed,

“Once a direction has been passed by a competent court upon the official respondents consider her claim to the engagement as Aaya in terms of engagement order dated 30.06.2025, there is no need to pass another similar direction by way of a fresh order.”

Background

An advertisement notice was issued inviting applications for engagement of Helpers/Aaya under Early Childhood Care and Education under the activity of Samagra Shiksha for the year 2024-2025. The petitioner responded to the said advertisement notice. Upon preparation of the select panel, the name of the private respondent was shown at Serial No. 1. The petitioner filed objections to the select panel on the ground that the said respondent was not a Below Poverty Line candidate.

According to the petitioner, the respondents reconstituted the selection committee pursuant to the objection raised by her, but in the panel prepared by the reconstituted selection committee, the name of the private respondent was again shown at Serial No. 1, and the engagement order came to be issued in her favour.

A representation was made by the petitioner against the said engagement before the Deputy Commissioner, whereafter the engagement of the private respondent was kept in abeyance pending enquiry. The engagement order of the private respondent was cancelled and, in her place, the petitioner was engaged in terms of the order dated 30.06.2025.

The private respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the cancellation of her engagement. Initially the order of cancellation was stayed by the Tribunal, but ultimately her petition was dismissed by the Tribunal. Before that, however, the official respondent had allowed the private respondent to rejoin on the post of Aaya. After the dismissal of the petition filed by the private respondent, the petitioner was not allowed to rejoin, and she made a number of representations to the official respondents.

Ultimately, the petitioner filed another writ before the Court, in which an order was passed on 15.05.2026. The said order was not implemented by the official respondents, which compelled the petitioner to file a contempt petition bearing CCP(S) No. 202/2026, which was pending before the Court.

Court's Observation

The Court observed that the petitioner, through the medium of the present petition, was seeking a direction upon the respondents to allow her to perform duties as Aaya pursuant to her engagement order dated 30.06.2025. The Court noted that it was the petitioner's own case that a direction had already been passed on 15.05.2026 in an earlier writ calling upon the official respondent to pass an express order in writing with reasons about the status and fate of the petitioner's selection-cum-engagement in terms of the order dated 30.06.2025.

The Court further noted that the Court had also directed the official respondent to come up with the consideration order after hearing the petitioner as well as the private respondent.

The Court observed that the said order had not been implemented by the official respondents till date and the contempt petition filed by the petitioner was pending before the Court. The Court held,

“Through the medium of present petition, the petitioner is seeking the same relief which she had sought by way of writ petition bearing WP(C) No. 1335/2026 and in fact, a direction favourable to her stands already passed in the said writ petition.”

The Court held that once a direction had been passed by a competent court upon the official respondents to consider her claim to the engagement as Aaya in terms of the engagement order dated 30.06.2025, there was no need to pass another similar direction by way of a fresh order. The Court held,

“In view of the foregoing discussion, it is clear that entertaining the present petition would amount to multiplicity of proceedings on the same cause of action, which is impermissible in law.”

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue the contempt proceedings against the official respondents.