1 2026:CGHC:22630 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3457 of 2021 * - Shatrughan Prasad Sidar, S/o Shri Sita Ram Sidar, Aged About 36 Years R/o- Village And Post Godam, Tahsil Sarangarh, Raigarh District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Its Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 – Director, Directorate Of Health And Family Welfare Department, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 13/05/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to reinstate the services of the petitioner on the post of Dresser on the basis of permanent Caste certificate (Annexure-P/11). 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to grant all consequential benefit with 18% interest. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.05.18 16:21:25 +0530 2 10.3 Grant any other writ(s), order(s), relief(s) in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon’ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. The facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner who is member of Scheduled Tribe (ST) community applied for post of Dresser under the respondent No. 3 pursuant to an Advertisement. The petitioner was selected and an order of appointment was issued in his favour on 22.08.2003. According to one of the conditions mentioned in the Advertisement, the petitioner was required to submit permanent social status certificate within prescribed period. The petitioner failed to submit permanent social status certificate within prescribed period. Therefore, services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 31.10.2009. Against said order the petitioner filed WPS No. 6714/2009, which was allowed vide order dated 29.03.2010. Pursuant to said order, the petitioner was reinstated in service without back wages and further liberty was granted to the respondent authorities to take decision after complying with basic principles of natural justice and fair play in action. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 02.08.2010, which was duly replied by the petitioner, but he failed to submit permanent social status certificate before the authority concerned, therefore, the respondent No. 3 terminated the service of the petitioner vide order dated 08.06.2011. The petitioner challenged said order by filing WPS No. 5265/2011 which was dismissed on merits vide order dated 20.03.2012. The coordinate bench recorded categorical finding in Paragraph No. 4 which reads as under:- 3 “4. Having regard to the facts situation of the case, as aforestated, it appears that the petitioner has not taken any steps to move the Committee for getting his caste certificate duly verified. On bare perusal of the documents, it is evident that the appointment of the petitioner against reserved seat was granted with a condition to produce permanent caste certificate. The petitioner remained in service for more than seven years without satisfying the condition of production of duly verified permanent caste certificate from the Committee. Thus, this Court cannot pass a direction to continue illegality for want of permanent caste certificate duly verified by the Committee. The appointment of the petitioner on the post of Dresser against the reserved seat is contrary to the provisions of law. Hence, the impugned order dated 8.6.2011 is just & proper, warranting no interference.” After dismissal of WPS No. 5265/2011, the petitioner obtained permanent social status certificate issued by the competent authority on 23.08.2018 and made a representation before respondent No. 3 on 23.08.2018 and when no action was taken by the said authority, WPS No. 3293/2019 was filed, which was disposed of vide order dated 27.08.2019 reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a fresh representation before the respondent authorities. The petitioner made a representation on 11.09.2019 and when no decision was taken by the respondent No. 3 on representation of the petitioner, Contempt Case (C) No. 608/2020 was filed. In reply, the respondent No. 3 stated that the representation of the petitioner was rejected on 27.08.2019 for want of vacancy. 3. Mr. Ishan Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the claim of the petitioner has been declined as no post is lying vacant with the respondent No. 3. He would contend that the petitioner was appointed against the sanctioned and vacant post of Dresser and without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing, his 4 appointment was cancelled as he failed to submit permanent social status certificate with the respondent No. 3. He would contend that at present, posts are lying vacant with the respondent No. 3, therefore, a direction may be issued to consider the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement. It is also contended that the petitioner belongs to ‘Sanwara’ caste which is notified as ST in the State of Chhattisgarh. He would contend that initially a temporary caste certificate was submitted by the petitioner with the respondents at the time of recruitment and at present, permanent social status certificate has been issued in favour of the petitioner by the competent authority. He would pray to allow this petition. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Anil S. Pandey, learned Government Advocate would oppose. Mr. Pandey would submit that the claim of the petitioner has been dismissed on merits in WPS No. 5265/2011. He would contend that initially the order dated 31.10.2009 whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated, was quashed in WPS No. 6714/2009 and liberty was granted to the respondent authorities to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He would submit that the petitioner was granted sufficient opportunity, show cause notice was issued which was duly replied and even thereafter the petitioner did not submit permanent social status certificate, therefore, his services were terminated vide order dated 08.06.2011. It is argued that the said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing WPS No. 5265/2011 which was dismissed on merits vide order dated 20.03.2012. It is argued that thereafter permanent social status certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner, but it was not submitted before the respondent No. 3 prior to dismissal of the writ petition on merits, therefore, the 5 subsequent petition claiming similar relief is hit by principles of res judicata. He would contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. The services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 31.10.2009 as he could not submit permanent social status certificate. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed in a special drive for members of ST, therefore, the petitioner was under obligation to submit such certificate before Appointing Authority according to conditions enumerated in Advertisement. Initially the order of termination of services was set aside and liberty was granted to State authorities to afford opportunity of hearing and thereafter the respondent No. 3 issued a show cause notice, which was duly replied by the petitioner herein and subsequently the order dated 08.06.2011 was passed by the respondent No. 3 terminating the services of the petitioner. The said order was challenged in WPS No. 5265/2011 and that was dismissed on merits vide order dated 20.03.2012. The coordinate bench recorded categorical finding that the petitioner did not take steps to move the Committee to secure his caste certificate duly verified. It is also observed that the petitioner was appointed against reserved seat with a condition to produce permanent caste certificate. The petitioner remained in service for more than 07 years without satisfying the conditions of production of duly verified permanent caste certificate. It is also observed that the Court cannot pass a direction to continue illegality for want of permanent caste certificate. 6 7. Subsequently, permanent social status certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner and effort is being made to secure reinstatement in the service by virtue of said social status certificate. The issue which has already been decided in the earlier round of litigation cannot be re- agitated or no direction can be issued to the respondent authorities to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement and such an attempt would certainly be contrary to the principles of res judicata. 8. The Supreme Court on the said issue of res judicata, in the case of State of Karnataka and another v. All India Manufacturers Organisation and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 683, has held as under:- “Res judicata is a doctrine based on the larger public interest and is founded on two grounds: one being the maxim nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa (No one ought to be twice vexed for one and the same cause) and second public policy that there ought to be an end to the same litigation. Section 11 CPC is not the foundation of the principle of res judicata, but merely statutory recognition thereof and hence, the section is not to be considered exhaustive of the general principle of law. The main purpose of the doctrine is that once a matter has been determined in a former proceeding, it should not be open to parties to reagitate the matter again and again. Section 11 CPC recognises this principle and forbids a court from trying any suit or issue, which is res judicata, recognising both “cause of action estoppel” and “issue estoppel”. 9. Similar view has also been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Farms Ltd. Previously known as M/S Escorts Farms (Ramgarh) Ltd. v. Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, U.P. and others reported in (2004) 4 SCC 281 wherein also the Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of res judicata has held as under:- 7 “Res judicata is a plea available in civil proceedings in accordance with Section 11 CPC. It is a doctrine applied to give finality to “lis” in original or appellate proceedings. The doctrine in substance means that an issue or a point decided and attaining finality should not be allowed to be reopened and reagitated twice over. The literal meaning of res is “everything that may form an object of rights and includes an object, subject- matter or status” and res judicata literally means: “a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment”. 10. The principle of res judicata is equally applicable to departmental and administrative proceedings once an issue has been finally adjudicated between the parties and has attained finality. The Supreme Court of India in Puja Ferro Alloys P. Ltd. v. State of Goa and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 326, reiterated that the doctrine of res judicata is founded on public policy to ensure finality in litigation and to prevent re- agitation of issues already decided, holding that the same principle extends even to administrative proceedings and proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. Relevant paragraphs are quoted hereinbelow:- “22. For the principle of res judicata to be applied in the subsequent proceeding, it must be between the same parties and the cause of action of the subsequent proceeding must be the same as in the previous proceeding. The Supreme Court in the case of Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin Debi15 has succinctly noted that the principle of res judicata is essential in giving a finality to judicial decisions by observing as under:- “The principle of res judicata is based on the need of giving a finality to judicial decisions. What it says is that once a res is judicata, it shall not be adjudged again. Primarily it applies as between past litigation and future litigation. When a matter — whether on a question of fact or a question of law — has been decided between two parties in one suit or proceeding and the decision is final, either because no 8 appeal was taken to a higher court or because the appeal was dismissed, or no appeal lies, neither party will be allowed in a future suit or proceeding between the same parties to canvass the matter again. This principle of res judicata is embodied in relation to suits in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure; but even where Section 11 does not apply, the principle of res judicata has been applied by courts for the purpose of achieving finality in litigation. The result of this is that the original court as well as any higher court must in any future litigation proceed on the basis that the previous decision was correct. The principle of res judicata applies also as between two stages in the same litigation to this extent that a court, whether the trial court or a higher court having at an earlier stage decided a matter in one way will not allow the parties to re- agitate the matter again at a subsequent stage of the same proceedings. …” 24. It is now well settled that the principle of res judicata applies even to petitions arising for decision in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. If any authority is required one may profitably refer to the decision in T.P. Moideen Koya v. State of Kerala17. 25. In the instant case, we are convinced that the writ petitions before the High Court were hit by res judicata in view of its previous decision in GR Ispat (supra) which, when challenged before this Court, was upheld with the further observation that a balanced view of the matter had been taken and no interference was called for. The appellant- companies were all parties and are bound by the decision in GR Ispat (supra). Having failed up to this Court, the appellant-companies could not have adopted a stand different from the one taken in the first round of litigation. They sought to challenge the demand notices by re-opening the litigation and arguing that they are entitled to the benefit for five years, which they would have been entitled to had they availed the supply of power within the time that the notification dated 30.09.1991 was in force.” 11. The issue which was settled between the parties way back in the year 2012, cannot be permitted to reopen the matter after lapse of long 14 9 years. The petitioner himself was negligent as he failed to submit permanent caste certificate pursuant to one of the conditions mentioned in the Advertisement though he worked for long 07 years under the respondents. 12. Taking into consideration the facts discussed above and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, no case is made out for interference into the matter. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti