V.K.SHUKLA, J. - (1.) PRESENT writ petition has been filed for following reliefs: "1. Issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 to take the interview of the petitioner for the post of Headmaster, High School in Hridyanand Sarvajanik Inter College, Jhalu, District Bijnor as Senior Most Teacher in institution. 2. Issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 not to declare the result of the interview already held on 18.5.2001 for the post of Headmaster, High School in Hridyanand Sarvajanik Inter College, Jhalu, District Bijnor till the petitioner is interviewed as Senior Most Teacher. 3. Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the present circumstances of the case. 4. Award the cost of the petition."
(2.) IN the district of Bijnor, there is recognised institution known as Hridyanand Sarvajanik Inter College, Jhalu, District Bijnor. Affairs of the said institution are being run and managed as per provisions as contained under U.P. Act No. 2 of 1921. The institution in question is on the grant-in-aid list of the State Government and the provisions of U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 are fully applicable. The selection and appointment on the post of Principal and teachers is to be made as per the provisions of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 and the Rules framed thereunder. In the institution concerned permanent Principal Sri Mahendra Pratap Sharma died on 13.11.1991, giving rise to a substantive vacancy. Said vacancy was advertised in Hindi daily "Amar Ujala" as Advertisement No.1/99/2000 dated 24.12.1999. Qua the said selection proceedings interview took place on 18.05.2001 and out of two senior most teachers, Abdul Sattar Ansari and Ved Prakash were called for interview, but they refused to be interviewed. Ved Prakash, who had been holding the charge of officiating Principal retired on 30.06.2002 and in his place petitioner was made officiating Principal. Petitioner submits that in spite of the fact that on the date of interview, he was amongst two senior most teachers, claiming that he was also entitled to be called for interview, filed writ petition No.47173 of 2002. Said writ petition was decided in terms of judgment rendered in writ petition No.11322 of 2002. Against the said judgment Special Leave Petition Nos.19335 and 19336 of 2003 had been filed and entire bunch of writ petition was allowed by Hon'ble Apex Court on 16.05.2008. Now, petitioner has filed present writ petition with the reliefs quoted above. Sri Arun Kumar Singh, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, contended with vehemence that in the present case two senior most teachers are entitled to be interviewed and in this background prayer which has been made in the writ petition is liable to be accepted. Countering the said submission, Sri A.K. Yadav, advocate as well as learned standing counsel contended that claim of petitioner is not liable to be accepted on the face of it and as such relief prayed for cannot be accorded to the petitioner.
(3.) AFTER respective arguments have been advanced, factual position, on which there is no dispute, is that the post of Principal fell vacant on 13.11.1991, which after due notification was advertised on 24.12.1999. At that point of time, the two senior most teachers were called for interview, but they refused to be interviewed. However, petitioner claiming himself to be amongst two senior most teachers approached this Court for giving direction for his being interviewed Said writ petition was decided in terms of judgment rendered in writ petition No.11322 of 2002. Against the said judgment Special Leave Petition Nos.19335 and 19336 of 2003 had been filed and entire bunch of writ petition was allowed by Hon'ble Apex Court on 16.05.2008. The issue raised by petitioner in earlier round of litigation went upto Hon'ble Apex Court and the relief claimed by petitioner stood refused by Hon'ble Apex Court after reversal of judgment of this Court, though on other issue, then it is not at all open to petitioner to file second writ petition with the relief quoted above. This Court in identical set of circumstances in the case of Udai Raj Singh v. State of U.P., (2008) 8 ADJ 612, has taken the view that once writ petition had been filed claiming therein that statutory rights had been violated and in earlier writ petition such issues were not raised, but the matter was decided on other issues and the said judgment has been reversed by Hon'ble Apex Court, then second round of litigation cannot be entertained and it is not at all open to the petitioner to raise the same issue by filing second writ petition. Consequently, writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable, as finality will have to be attached to earlier proceedings. No order as to costs.;