01Facts
The petitioner sought permission to perform duties as an Aaya under an engagement order dated 30 June 2025.
¶ 4–7, 9Following a dispute over the selection and the engagement of respondent No. 6, the petitioner had earlier filed WP(C) No. 1335/2026.
¶ 4–7, 9On 15 May 2026, the High Court directed respondent No. 5 to hear the petitioner and respondent No. 6 and issue a reasoned order determining the status of the petitioner’s selection-cum-engagement.
¶ 4–7, 9The petitioner alleged non-compliance and filed a pending contempt petition, CCP(S) No. 202/2026.
¶ 4–7, 9She then brought the present petition seeking a direction to be allowed to perform the Aaya duties
¶ 4–7, 902Issues
i.Whether the petitioner could obtain, through a fresh writ petition, a direction to perform duties when an earlier writ petition had already resulted in a direction concerning the status of her engagement
¶ 9–11ii.Whether entertaining the fresh petition would amount to impermissible multiplicity of proceedings while contempt proceedings concerning non-compliance with the earlier direction remained pending
¶ 10–1203Law Applied
The Court applied the principle that a party should not multiply proceedings by seeking the same relief on the same cause of action when a competent court has already issued a direction addressing the claim.
¶ 10–12Where the alleged grievance is non-compliance with that direction, the appropriate course is to pursue the existing enforcement or contempt proceedings rather than seek a duplicative writ
¶ 10–12No statute or precedent was cited.
¶ 10–1204Reasoning
The earlier order had already required respondent No. 5 to determine, by a reasoned order after hearing the affected parties, the status and fate of the petitioner’s engagement.
¶ 9–11Because the present petition sought a direction to permit her to perform the same duties, the Court considered the relief duplicative.
¶ 9–11The petitioner also had a contempt petition pending to address the alleged failure to comply with the earlier order; the Court therefore saw no need to issue another similar direction
¶ 9–1105Holding
The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that entertaining it would cause impermissible multiplicity of proceedings.
¶ 12It left the petitioner at liberty to pursue the pending contempt proceedings against the official respondents
¶ 12Original Court PDF
SHANAZA BANOOvsUT OF J AND K TH. COMMISSIONER SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, JAMMU AND OTHERS
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
