2025:UHC:8666 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/1598/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J 1. Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. N.K. Papnoi, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Petitioner claims to be a dependant of Uttarakhand Rajya Andolankari. He participated in a selection for the post of Sub-Inspector in Uttarakhand Police, held pursuant to advertisement dated 29.08.2014. According to him, he is one of the candidates, out of total six, who qualified against the vacancies reserved for dependant for Uttarakhand Rajya Andolankari. However, appointment was not given to him because of an interim order passed by Division Bench of this Court in WPPIL No. 67 of 2011. 4. Petitioner has sought the following relief in this writ petition:- (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to open the sealed envelope pertaining to the result of selection of Petitioner against the post of Sub-Inspector Civil Police pursuant to advertisement dated 29.08.2014 and consequently give him benefit of section 5 of the Uttarakhand Act No. 11 of 2023. 5. Petitioner contends that since State Legislature has now enacted a law known as “The Uttarakhand Reservation in Government Service for the Identified Andolankari of Uttarakhand State Movement of their Dependants Act, 2023 2025:UHC:8666 (in short ‘Uttarakhand Act No. 11 of 2024’), which provides for reservation to identified Andolankaries of Uttarakhand Rajya Andolan and their dependants, therefore, petitioner has a right to be appointed. 6. Section 5 of the said Act is extracted below:- “The selections/appointments of the State andolankari made to different Government services/posts as per the government order issued on 11th of August, 2004 or thereafter, shall be deemed to be valid selections/appointments under this Act.” 7. Learned State Counsel points out that petitioner filed WPSS No. 107 of 2025, seeking the following reliefs:- (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider claim of Petitioner for appointment on the post of Sub Inspector Civil Police pursuant to advertisement dated 29.08.2014 and 31.01.2024 and selection of Petitioner against available vacancies under Uttarakhand Andolankari quota in compliance of section 5 of the Uttarakhand Act No. 11 of 2023. 8. A coordinate Bench dismissed the said writ petition, vide order dated 15.05.2025. Para 12 and 13 of the said judgment are extracted below:- “12. A bare reading of it makes it clear that these two provisions are basically to save such selections and appointments, which had already been made. The petitioner has never been appointed, never been selected. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim appointment based on application of the provisions of the 2023 Act. 13. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to make any interference. Accordingly, 2025:UHC:8666 the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.” 9. Learned State Counsel further submits that petitioner thereafter preferred Special Appeal No. 138 of 2025, which was dismissed by Division Bench, vide judgment dated 19.08.2025. Thus, he submits that this subsequent writ petition, for similar relief, is not maintainable as petitioner has sought the identical relief, but by modulating the prayer. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the earlier writ petition, there was no prayer for opening of seal cover. 11. Learned State Counsel submits that petitioner could have prayed for the said relief in the earlier writ petition, merely because he omitted to seek that relief, another writ petition for similar relief cannot be entertained and the Principle of constructive res judicata is attracted to the subsequent writ petition for similar relief. 12. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned State Counsel. After dismissal of earlier writ petition and unconditional withdrawal of special appeal filed thereagainst, subsequent writ petition for similar relief would not be maintainable and would be barred by principle of res judicata and Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 25.09.2025 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d13 69512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F461 0C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2025.09.25 06:05:44 -07'00' 2025:UHC:8666