Matter Set at Rest in Appeal Cannot Be Reopened Through Subsequent RTI Disclosures

The petitioner applied for the post of Constable (Technical/Tradesman) under a 2012 advertisement. Although successful in physical and written tests, he was declared medically unfit by the board

After a private check-up suggested fitness, he filed a writ (CWJC No. 12656/2013). The court directed the respondents to consider his case against vacant posts if he applied, but his subsequent appeal (LPA No. 1285/2015) was dismissed on 21.12.2016 because he had failed to file the required application

Years later, the petitioner sought recruitment records via the RTI Act. The authorities and the Central Information Commission informed him that the 2012 recruitment records were weeded out in 2014

The petitioner filed the present writ seeking a direction to consider his candidature, alleging "malafide" destruction of records

1. Whether the petitioner can re-agitate the claim for appointment after his prior challenge was dismissed on merits by a Division Bench

2. Whether the respondent authorities are liable for the destruction of recruitment records that were "weeded out" per internal policy after the conclusion of the process

The court applied the principles of finality of judgment and res judicata regarding litigation that has reached a conclusion before a superior bench

It further acknowledged the administrative rules governing the "weeding out" or destruction of old recruitment records after a specific period (2014) following the culmination of the selection process

The court reasoned that the petitioner’s claim for appointment had already been "set at rest" by the Hon’ble Division Bench in LPA No. 1285 of 2015

The court found that the petitioner was attempting to re-open a settled matter by using RTI queries as a fresh cause of action

Regarding the missing records, the court noted that the selection process for the 2012 advertisement had long since closed, subsequent advertisements had been issued, and appointments were finalized

Since the Division Bench had already ruled against the petitioner in 2016, and the records were destroyed according to policy, there was no legal basis to revive a decade-old recruitment claim

It held that the matter regarding the petitioner's appointment was final following the order dated 21.12.2016 in LPA No. 1285 of 2015. The petitioner cannot be permitted to re-open a settled issue through subsequent RTI applications or allegations of record destruction once the judicial process has concluded