Denied Reinstatement: High Court Rejects Untimely Petition for Regularization of Service at Patna Medical College and Hospital

 

This case, heard in the High Court of Judicature at Patna, involves a writ petition filed by Surendra Ram, seeking the reversal of his termination from a Class-4 post at Patna Medical College and Hospital (PMCH) and a directive for the regularization of his services there. The High Court dismissed the petition, citing principles of res judicata (a matter already decided) and delay and laches (unreasonable delay in pursuing a legal remedy). This summary details the petitioner's claims, the court's reasoning, and the implications of the judgment.

Background and Petitioner's Claims:

Surendra Ram claimed that he was appointed to the post of "Kakshpal" at PMCH in 1978 but was terminated from service in 1990. Following his termination, he filed a writ petition in 1995, which was ultimately dismissed. However, the court in the previous petition had observed that if any appointments were to be made at PMCH, the petitioner should be considered along with other eligible candidates.

The petitioner argued that despite filing several representations before the District Magistrate of Patna and the Superintendent of PMCH, his services were not regularized. He thus sought a court directive to compel the authorities to regularize his employment.

Respondent's Arguments and Court's Analysis:

The respondent-State countered these claims by arguing that the petition was barred by res judicata and marred by delay and laches. They referred to the previous writ petition filed by the petitioner, where he had sought regularization as a sweeper at PMCH. The court in the earlier case had refused to grant a positive direction for appointments without proper advertisement and procedure.

The respondent's counsel asserted that no appointments for 4th-grade staff had been made by the Superintendent of PMCH since the previous court order.

The High Court sided with the respondents. It reasoned that the petitioner was essentially seeking the same relief (regularization of services) in the new petition as he had in the previous one, which was dismissed. This, the court held, was a clear instance of res judicata and constructive res judicata. The court cited several Supreme Court precedents to support its position on res judicata and the impropriety of filing repeated writ petitions for the same relief.

Furthermore, the High Court emphasized the significant delay in the petitioner's approach. The petitioner had filed the current petition approximately 31 years after his termination or at least 27 years after the dismissal of his earlier petition. The court cited numerous Supreme Court judgments highlighting that writ courts are not obligated to provide relief to those who approach the court belatedly without a valid reason.

Decision and Implications:

The High Court concluded that the writ petition was not maintainable due to being barred by res judicata and the principles of delay and laches. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

This case illustrates the importance of timely pursuit of legal remedies and the application of res judicata to prevent repeated litigation on the same issue. It reinforces the principle that High Courts, while having extraordinary powers, are not inclined to entertain petitions filed after an unreasonable delay, especially when the petitioner fails to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The judgment also highlights the court's stance against the practice of filing multiple writ petitions seeking the same or similar relief, which can burden the judicial system and waste court resources.

Read the full judgement Below;

https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTM5ODAjMjAyMSMxI04=-Ap49mOtaNuw=