- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) This is one of the case, which can be described as gross misuse of process of court.
(3.) The petitioner is aggrieved with the action of respondent for not including his name in the merit-list for appointment on the post of Pharmacist against reserve quota of OBC in the year 1995. The petitioner filed an Original Application No.430/2002 after a delay of seven years, which was dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal holding that the applicant has failed to substantiate his claim. The order of Tribunal attained finality. However, petitioner again filed second original application No.589/2003 for the same relief on the ground that he could not produce certain documents in the earlier Original Application. The second Original Application No.589/2003 was also dismissed as barred by principle of res judicata. Thereafter, petitioner filed D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1112/2004 before this Court, which was dismissed by Division Bench vide order dated 10th February, 2005. The order of High Court dated 10th February, 2005 is reproduced as under:- "This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 24.12.03 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur vide Annex. 10 by which the application filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of res judicata. Admittedly, the petitioner had moved the Tribunal earlier also alleging that although he was not included in the merit list for appointment against the reserved quota for OBC, persons of lower merit in the OBC quota were granted appointment to the exclusion of the petitioner. The petitioner, however, failed to establish his plea on facts before the Tribunal as a result of which his application stood dismissed before the Tribunal by order dated 24.12.2003. The petitioner thereafter collected some other material and filed a representation regarding denial of appointment to him but having been rendered unsuccessful in this attempt also, he filed fresh application before the Tribunal and in second round his application was dismissed by virtue of the principle of constructive res judicata by order dated 24.12.2003 as already recorded hereinbefore. Before adverting to the plea as to whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application on the basis of constructive res judicata, we also deem it appropriate to record that the pet has raised a grievance in regard to the merit list which was prepared in the year 1995 and the application was filed in the year 2002 (Annex. A/4 bearing No.430/2002) which was rejected on 24.12.2002 as the learned Members of the Tribunal held that the well settled legal position is that the selection does not confer an indefeasible right to any candidate to get appointment. The learned Members of the Tribunal, however, ignored the question of limitation completely missing that application was time barred by almost 7 years as the list was prepared in the year 1995 and grievance in regard to the same was raised for the first time in the year 2002 and having failed in this attempt, another round of litigation was started by filing fresh application in the year 2003 bearing Application No.589/03 which was rejected by the members on the principle of constructive res judicata. Shri P.V. Calla, learned counsel for the petitioner frankly conceded that he had challenged the order on the ground that the principle of res judicata is not applicable on the Tribunal and once it was noticed that the petitioner had earlier moved the court unsuccessfully in regard to the challenge of selection which also was time barred by more than 7 years, the second application could not have been possibly entertained by the Tribunal. This writ petition under the circumstances is absolutely devoid of merit and the same is rejected.";