Withdrawal of appeal renders adjudicated grounds binding; authorities cannot re-agitate them in subsequent proceedings.

The U.P. Subordinate Services Selection Commission (“UPSSSC”) issued Advertisement No. 22-Examination/2016 for recruitment to 69 posts of Librarian under the Directorate of Technical Education, prescribing graduation with a Diploma in Library Science and a pay scale of ₹5,200–20,200 with Grade Pay of ₹2,800.

The written examination was held on 28.07.2019, interviews were conducted between 01.12.2020 and 24.12.2020, and the final result was declared on 10.12.2021.

During the selection process, the All India Council for Technical Education (“AICTE”) notified its 2019 Regulations enhancing the qualifications, pay scale and status of Librarians/Assistant Librarians in technical institutions.

The State thereafter promulgated the Uttar Pradesh Technical Education (Teaching) Service Rules, 2021, prescribing a Master’s degree in Library Science and qualification in the National Eligibility Test, and placing the post within the higher Group-B structure.

The selected candidates initially approached the High Court in Writ-A No. 5390 of 2022.

By judgment dated 05.12.2022, the learned Single Judge directed the State to grant appointments pursuant to the UPSSSC result within one month, while permitting the State to take a contrary decision within the same period if it was of “another view”, subject to the observations in that judgment.

The State challenged that judgment in Special Appeal No. 65 of 2023 but later withdrew the appeal as not pressed, stating that an order had been passed in compliance with the Single Judge’s judgment.

The State subsequently passed an order dated 23.03.2024 rejecting appointment on substantially the same grounds that had already been raised and rejected in Writ-A No. 5390 of 2022.

The petitioners challenged that order in Writ-A Nos. 6738 of 2024 and 7788 of 2024, which were dismissed by a common judgment dated 30.07.2024.

The present Special Appeals challenged that dismissal.

Whether the State was barred by res judicata, constructive res judicata, estoppel or acquiescence from re-agitating grounds already rejected in Writ-A No. 5390 of 2022 after withdrawing Special Appeal No. 65 of 2023.

Whether the AICTE Regulations, 2019 and the U.P. Technical Education (Teaching) Service Rules, 2021 retrospectively invalidated or otherwise displaced the ongoing UPSSSC selection initiated under the 2016 advertisement.

Whether the State could deny appointment on the ground that the original Librarian posts had been upgraded and that no posts remained in the earlier pay scale and Grade Pay.

Whether the State’s order dated 23.03.2024 validly complied with the earlier judgment or impermissibly amounted to sitting in appeal over that judgment.

The Court applied the doctrine of res judicata, including constructive res judicata under Section 11 and Explanation IV of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, under which matters directly and substantially in issue, or matters that might and ought to have been raised earlier, cannot be re-agitated between the same parties.

It relied on Satyadhyan Ghoshal v. Deorajin Debi, holding that final judicial decisions bind the parties in subsequent proceedings.

It relied on Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal v. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy, distinguishing issues of fact/mixed law and fact from abstract questions of law.

It relied on Forward Construction Co. v. Prabhat Mandal, explaining constructive res judicata.

Under Ramjit Singh Kardam v. Sanjeev Kumar, an ongoing selection is not automatically defeated merely because the relevant cadre becomes a dying cadre or the post is subsequently altered; the authority must take a conscious and reasoned decision.

The Court further applied the principle in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner that an administrative order must be justified by the reasons stated in it and cannot be supported later by supplementary reasons.

It also applied the rule that a competent authority cannot sit in appeal over a binding judicial decision.

The AICTE Regulations, particularly Clause 1.4(f), contemplated application of changed qualifications to pending selections only after publication of a corrigendum, while the 2021 Rules operated prospectively from 09.06.2021.

The Division Bench held that the State had already contested the validity and continuation of the selection in Writ-A No. 5390 of 2022 on the grounds of the AICTE Regulations, the 2021 Rules, the change in qualifications and pay scale, the alleged withdrawal or suspension of the requisition, and the absence of an indefeasible right arising from selection.

Those grounds had been rejected by the learned Single Judge, and the State’s withdrawal of Special Appeal No. 65 of 2023 left that judgment operative and binding.

The liberty granted to the State to take “another view” was not an unrestricted power to reconsider and reject the claim on the same grounds; it required a decision consistent with the observations and findings of the earlier judgment.

The AICTE Regulations did not automatically invalidate the ongoing selection.

Clause 1.4(f) required the employer to publish a corrigendum before applying the amended qualifications to a pending process, and no such corrigendum had been issued.

The 2021 Rules were prospective and contained no provision retrospectively cancelling the selection already conducted.

The State’s communications requesting UPSSSC to halt or withdraw the requisition did not legally cancel the requisition, since that power rested with the State and had not been effectively exercised.

The Court also rejected the submission that all earlier posts had disappeared following upgradation.

Appendix-II to the 2021 Rules preserved the position of existing Librarians and contemplated their upgradation under the Career Advancement Scheme, demonstrating that the earlier cadre had not been wholly extinguished.

In any event, the alleged non-availability of posts was neither properly pleaded nor stated as a ground in the impugned order and could not be introduced through later submissions.

Consequently, the order dated 23.03.2024 merely repeated grounds already rejected and amounted to an impermissible review or appeal over the earlier judgment.

The State’s order dated 23.03.2024 and the subsequent judgment dated 30.07.2024 were set aside.

Special Appeal No. 701 of 2024 was allowed, and the respondents were directed to appoint the petitioners as Librarians in the pay scale of ₹5,200–20,200 with Grade Pay of ₹2,800 within one month from production of the certified copy of the judgment.

Although the appellants in Special Appeal No. 829 of 2024 were not parties to Writ-A No. 5390 of 2022, the Court found their case identical and held that they stood on the same footing as the petitioners in Special Appeal No. 701 of 2024.

Their appeal was consequently allowed, the Single Judge’s judgment in Writ-A No. 7788 of 2024 was set aside, and the State was directed to grant them appointment as Librarians.