A.P. Sahi, J. - (1.) The petitioners claim appointment on the post of Lekhpal after having undergone their training in the Lekhpal Training School. The respondents have filed a counter - affidavit asserting that the petitioners' claim cannot be considered as they were sent on training to the school without there being any prior permission of the District Magistrate as required under the provisions of Chapter XIV of the U.P. Land Record Manual. Along with the counter-affidavit, they have appended the amended paragraphs 212 and 213 of Chapter XIV of the Land Record Manual to urge that the information in writing to the District Magistrate is necessary and it was incumbent upon the authority concerned to have sought permission of the District Magistrate before sending the petitioners to training which was not done and, as such, the selections and training of the petitioners is vitiated and they cannot be offered appointment. Sri H.N. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that there were 130 vacancies of Lekhpal out of which 93 have been filled up and that there are vacancies even available at present in the district of Jaunpur against which the petitioners can be appointed.
(2.) Sri H.N. Singh has contended that the petitioners had earlier filed writ petition No. 23905 of 2004 which writ petition was allowed and the order dated 26.5.2004 whereby the petitioners had been prevented by the District Magistrate, Ghazipur, from appearing in the examinations of Lekhpal Training School, Ghazipur, was quashed; the judgment is appended as Annexure-I to the writ petition. Sri Singh contends, that in view of the specific findings recorded therein that there was no rule or law requiring previous permission from the District Magistrate by the Principal to admit the petitioners, the petition deserves to be allowed and the results of the petitioners deserve to be declared. Sri Singh contends that pursuant to the said directions, the results have been declared and others have also been offered appointment but the petitioners are being prevented on the pretext of the very same issue as stated in the counter-affidavit which stood decided in favour of the petitioners after contest between the same parties vide judgment dated 2.2.2005.
(3.) Sri Singh has further relied upon the following decisions to support his contentions that the stand taken in the counter-affidavit cannot be permitted now, in view of the principles of res judicata which would squarely apply in the present controversy; AIR 1990 SC 334 (Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India and others), (1997) 2 SCC 552 ; Gone Gouri Naidu (Minor) and another v. Thandrothu Bodemma and others, (1998) 4 SCC 361 ; ( Ashok Kumar Srivastav v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and others), AIR 1966 SC 1061, AIR 1968 SC 1328, (2005) 4 SCC 120, AND (2005) 6 SCC 751.;