[2025:RJ-JP:48196-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 52/2022 Ganesh Narain Saini Son Of Late Shri Baldev Mali, Aged About 61 Years, Resident Of House No. 1262, Acharyaon Ka Rasta, Kishanpole Bazar, Jaipur, Retired As Junior Hindi Translator, Office Of Chief General Manager (Telecom), Rajasthan Circle, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Through Chairman And Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Ivth Floor, Harish Chandra Mathur Lane Janpath, New Delhi. 2. The Chief General Manager (Telecom), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Bsnl), Rajasthan Circle, Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. 3. Smt. Seema Gupta, Rajabhasha Adhikari, Office Of The Chief General Manager (Telecom), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Bsnl), Rajasthan Cirlce, Sardar Patel Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma Mr. Vaibhav Jhankra Mr. Divyanshu Charan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Mathur Ms. Mahima Upadhyay Ms. Seema Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order 27/11/2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 10.09.2021 passed by learned Central Administrative [2025:RJ-JP:48196-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-52/2022] Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘learned Tribunal’), whereby, the original application preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground of res-judicata. 3. Briefly noted the facts in the writ petition are that the petitioner has preferred an original application before learned Tribunal challenging the examination on the ground that the respondent BSNL changed the cutoff date and postponed the LICE examination just to give undue advantage to one Smt. Seema Gupta, private respondent in original application). By way of filing the aforesaid original application, the petitioner prayed for direction to the respondents for consideration of his case for promotion on the post of Rajbhasha Adhikari. The learned Tribunal, vide order dated 11.02.2013, disposed of the original application and directed to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Rajbhasha Adhikari against the available posts on notional basis. 4. The matter was reconsidered by the respondent Department and the same was decided vide order dated 28.06.2013, whereby, the case of the petitioner was not found feasible for promotion to the post of Rajbhasha Adhikari. 5. The order dated 28.06.2013 was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing the original application No.291/376/2014 before learned Tribunal and the same has been dismissed on the ground of res-judicata by learned Tribunal vide order dated 10.09.2021. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Tribunal was not right in rejecting the original application on the ground of res-judicata as the fresh cause of action arose to the petitioner in view of the fact that the promotion case of the [2025:RJ-JP:48196-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-52/2022] petitioner was reconsidered by the respondent Department and rejected the same by order dated 28.06.2013. Therefore, learned Tribunal should have considered the matter and decided the same on merit instead of rejecting the original application on the ground of res-judicata. He, therefore, prays that the order dated 10.09.2021 may be quashed and set aside and the matter may be remanded back to learned Tribunal for deciding the same afresh on merit. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents are not in a position to refute the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner in view of the fact that a fresh order for re-considering the case of the petitioner on merits has been passed by the respondent department on 28.06.2013. 8. In view of the submissions made before this Court, we are of the view that since the respondent Department has reconsidered the matter of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Rajbhasha Adhikari and after re-considering the same, a detailed speaking order dated 28.06.2013 has been passed. Therefore, the petitioner was well within his right to approach learned Tribunal, so as to challenge the order dated 28.06.2013 passed by the respondents. Learned Tribunal was not right in rejecting the original application on the ground of res-judicata as the petitioner is having a fresh cause of action in the shape of his case being rejected vide order dated 28.06.2013, therefore, learned Tribunal should have passed the order on merit instead of rejecting the same on the ground of res-judicata. 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, learned Tribunal has committed an error by passing the order dated 10.09.2021. [2025:RJ-JP:48196-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-52/2022] 10. In view of the discussions made above, the present writ petition merits acceptance and the same is allowed. The order dated 10.09.2021 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to learned Tribunal to decide the same on merit. 11. The matter is pending since the year 2009, we request learned Tribunal to decide the original application at the earliest preferably within a period of six months from today. 12. The stay application and other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J SanjayS/PAYAL DHAWAN /53