# Krishna Kant v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 968 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2026-01-06 - **Case number:** Writ A No. 14148 of 2025 - **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/krishna-kant-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54086 - **Pages:** 3 ## Text 968 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES absorption or adjustment has been made dehors the statutory rules or without authority of law, necessary corrective action shall be taken strictly in accordance with law. 56. It is made clear that no claim based on equity, sympathy, long continuance in service, or administrative lapse can be sustained where the initial absorption or adjustment itself is contrary to statutory provisions. There can be no estoppel against statute, and any action taken in violation of the governing rules cannot be protected merely on equitable considerations. 57. The Court further observes that permitting such illegal absorptions or adjustments would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as it would amount to conferring undue advantage upon certain individuals at the cost of other eligible candidates who may have been deprived of equal opportunity in public employment. However, before taking any adverse action, the concerned teachers shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing, in compliance with the principles of natural justice. 58. The entire exercise shall be completed expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, and the Principal Secretary shall ensure strict compliance in its true letter and spirit. 59. Registrar Compliance is directed to communicate this order to the Principal Secretary, Department of Basic Education, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow as well as Principal Secretary (Law) & L.R., Government of U.P., Lucknow, for its compliance forthwith. 60. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. ---------- (2026) 1 ILRA 968 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.01.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J. Writ A No. 14148 of 2025 Krishna Kant ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Issue for Consideration (1) Application of principle of constructive res judicata to the maintainability of writ petition filed against recovery proceeding initiated in pursuance of the earlier termination order, which was confirmed in writ petition. Headnotes (A) Practice and procedure - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ - Maintainability - Recovery - Termination order passed earlier was confirmed in writ petition - Special Appeal 1 All. Krishna Kant Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 969 against writ order was pending - Consequential recovery certificate for recovery of salary was issued - Validity challenged - Principle of constructive res judicata - Applicability. (E-1) Held : Subsequent order directing recovery of the salary paid to the petitioner is merely consequential in nature and does not give rise to any fresh or independent cause of action. A writ petition assailing such a consequential order would, therefore, amount to re-agitation of the very same issue and a second round of litigation, which is impermissible in law - No independent relief can be claimed on the basis of a consequential or ancillary order in the present writ petition. Thus, the writ petition preferred against the order impugned is not maintainable. [Para 4 and 6] Case Law Cited State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Nawab Hussain, (1977) 2 SCC 806; Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (1990) 2 SCC 715; K.K. Modi vs. K.N. Modi and others, (1998) 3 SCC 573; Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, (2014) 1 SCC 603. - referred to. List of Acts Constitution of India - Article 226. List of Keywords Consequential order, Recovery certificate, Dismissal order, Cause of action, Principle of constructive res judicata, Ancillary order. Case Arising From Recovery certificate dated 19.08.2025 issued by respondent no. 3 for recovery of Rs. 71,10,614/- . Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant : Prem Prakash. Advs. for the Respondents : Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi. (Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State, Sri Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and perused the record. 2. The petitioner has preferred instant writ petition challenging an order / recovery certificate dated 19.08.2025 issued by respondent no. 3, whereby recovery of Rs. 71,10,614/- has been ordered against the petitioner. 3. The order under challenge is a consequential order passed pursuant to the termination order dated 04.07.2025, by which appointment of the petitioner was declared void ab initio with effect from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 31.03.1998. The said order has already been assailed by the petitioner by means of Writ-A No. 10029 of 2025 (Krishna Kant v. State of U.P. and 2 Others), which came to be dismissed by this Court vide judgement and order dated 17.10.2025. The petitioner has preferred Special Appeal No. 1138 of 2025, challenging the aforesaid order dated 17.10.2025, which is still pending. 4. The writ petition earlier filed by the petitioner challenging the order cancelling his appointment has already been dismissed and the subsequent order directing recovery of the salary paid to the petitioner is merely consequential in nature and does not give rise to any fresh or independent cause of action. A writ petition assailing such a consequential order would, therefore, 970 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES amount to re-agitation of the very same issue and a second round of litigation, which is impermissible in law. 5. In a catena of judgements, the Supreme Court has categorically held that where a party had an opportunity to raise a ground in earlier proceedings but failed to do so, the principle of constructive res judicata would apply, and a subsequent petition on the same cause or consequential relief would not be maintainable. Reference may be made to the judgements in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Nawab Hussain, (1977) 2 SCC 806 and Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra and others, (1990) 2 SCC 715. In the case of K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi and others, (1998) 3 SCC 573, also, the Apex Court has deprecated repeated litigation on the same subject matter and held that such practice amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. Even otherwise, the original order passed by the authority has already been challenged by the petitioner by filing a Special Appeal, which is admittedly pending consideration. During the pendency of the Special Appeal, parallel proceedings seeking substantially the same relief are barred. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, (2014) 1 SCC 603, the Supreme Court has held that where a statutory or appellate remedy is being pursued, a writ petition is ordinarily not maintainable. 6. In view of the settled legal position and the pendency of the Special Appeal, once the principal relief is declined, no independent relief can be claimed on the basis of a consequential or ancillary order in the present writ petition. Thus, the writ petition preferred against the order impugned is not maintainable. It is dismissed accordingly. Interim order granted earlier stands discharged. 7. No order as to costs. ---------- (2026) 1 ILRA 970 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 12.01.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. Writ A No. 14910 of 2025 Ache Lal ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Issue for Consideration (1) Relevancy of family welfare, while considering the claim of compassionate appointment. (2) Basis of suitability of granting compassionate appointment. (3) Role of registered will in favour of a family member while considering the case of granting compassionate appointment. Headnotes