Srinagar: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh on Tuesday dismissed an intra-court appeal challenging the appointment of a Rehbar-e-Taleem (ReT) teacher in Budgam, holding that the appellant has resorted to forum shopping and abuse of the process of law.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Shahzad Azeem and Justice Sindhu Sharma observed that the dispute involves contested facts already pending before a civil court and cannot be simultaneously pursued through writ jurisdiction.
It upheld the judgment of the single bench which had earlier dismissed the writ petition filed by one Waheeda Yaseen Khan seeking quashing of the 2011 appointment order issued in favour of another candidate Muzaffar Mohi-ud-Din Mir.
The dispute dates back to November 2010, when the Zonal Education Officer, Budgam, issued a notification for engagement of two ReT teachers at an upgraded Primary School in Ompora, Budgam.
Both Waheeda and Muzaffar applied for the posts. In the merit panel prepared by the authorities, Mir was placed at serial number two, while Khan was placed at serial number three.
Waheeda objected to Muzaffar’s inclusion, alleging that he was actually a resident of Batpora, Handwara of Kupwara district, and therefore not eligible under the ReT scheme meant for local residents of the area.
However, an inquiry conducted by the Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), Budgam, in April 2011 found that Muzaffar possessed a Permanent Resident Certificate (PRC) of village Ompora, while Waheeda held a PRC issued from Srinagar. On the basis of this report, Mir was appointed as ReT teacher on July 28, 2011.
Waheeda subsequently filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that she was entitled to the appointment and also sought an injunction against Muzaffar’s appointment.
Later in 2017, she approached the High Court through a writ petition seeking a direction for inquiry into Muzaffar’s residence and documents. The court disposed of the petition, observing that the issue of residence was already under consideration before the trial court in the civil suit.
Despite this, Waheeda filed another writ petition in 2018 challenging her adversary’s appointment and the inquiry report, alleging that the appointment had been obtained through forged documents. The single bench dismissed the petition in September 2021, leading to the present intra-court appeal.
While dismissing the appeal, the Division Bench underscored several important legal principles. It held that once a litigant has approached the civil court for adjudication of disputed facts, the same dispute cannot be pursued simultaneously through writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The bench observed that the controversy regarding residence certificates and eligibility involves factual disputes requiring evidence, which can only be properly adjudicated by a civil court.
The court held that the second writ petition was barred by the principle of res judicata because similar issues had already been considered in earlier proceedings.
It also noted that the appellant lady had failed to challenge the appointment order in the earlier writ petition despite its existence at the time, which attracted the doctrine of constructive res judicata.
Describing the litigation as a “classic instance of repetitive litigation”, the court observed that the appellant’s repeated attempts amounted to forum shopping and abuse of the process of law.
The bench relied on a Supreme Court ruling to reiterate that when an effective remedy exists under the civil law framework, the High Court should refrain from exercising extraordinary jurisdiction.
Finding no legal or factual error in the earlier judgment, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal and vacated any interim directions.
The court observed that the appellant’s repeated attempts to reopen the dispute were barred by principles of finality, election of remedies and jurisdictional propriety, leaving the civil court as the proper forum to decide the factual issues involved.
