Ajit Singh vs Des Raj

R.L. Anand, J.—By this judgment I dispose of two regular second appeals - No. 4210 of 2000 (Ajit Singh and ors. v. Des Raj & ors.) and No. 4673 of 2000 (Municipal Committee, Sultanpur Lodhi & ors. v. Des Raj & ors.), as both the appeals have arisen from the judgment and decree dated 4.9.2000 passed by District Judge, Kapurthala, who affirmed the judgment and decree dated 29.3.1994 passed by Addl. Senior Sub Judge, Sultanpur Lodhi.

Some facts can be noticed in the following manner:-

Des Raj plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction by alleging that he had been working as Peon in Municipal Committee , Sultanpur Lodhi for the last about 22 years and he belongs to schedule caste community. He was well conversant with the work of the octroi and had got sufficient experience. Mr. Ram Lubhaya, Octroi Clerk of the Municipal Committee had expired and his post was lying vacant. He requested to the Municipal Committee to promote him against the said post and in view of his request he was designated as Clerk vide resolution No. 94 dated 12.2.1992. Since then he was working as such. He alleged that he fulfilled his educational qualification in the year 1990. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant No. 3 Ajit Singh and defendant No. 4 Kamal Kumar had been working as Peon for the last about six years in the Municipal Committee, Sultanpur Lodhi and they were junior to him. But the Municipal Committee got their applications and passed resolutions No. 99 and 100 dated 20.3.1999 which are illegal. Vide said resolutions Ajit Singh and Kamal Kumar were ordered to be posted as Clerks.

Notice of the suit was given to the respondents. The Municipal Committee filed written statement and alleged that the suit is not maintainable in the present form; that the plaintiff has no cause of action; that notice u/s 49 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 has not been served upon it before filing the present suit and that notice u/s 80 CPC has also not been served upon the Committee. On merits, the stand of the Committee is that the resolution passed in favour of the plaintiff was not sanctioned by the Deputy Director, Local Government, Jalandhary and thereafter the Committee had to pass separate resolutions which were duly sanctioned by the Deputy Director, Local Govt., Jalandhar. The promotions were given to the contesting defendants according to law.

Defendants No. 3 and 4 filed a separate written statement and their stand was common with that of the Municipal Committee.

From the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues :-

Whether the order/resolution No. 99 and 100 dated 20.3.1992 vide which Ajit Singh and Kamal Kumar defendants No. 3 and 4 have been promoted as Clerk from Peon is illegal, null and void and arbitrary ? if so, its effect ? OPP

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration prayed for with consequential relief of permanent injunction ? OPP

Whether the suit in the present form is not maintainable ? OPD

Whether the suit is not maintainable as notice u/s 49 of the Punjab Municipal Act has not been served on the Municipal Committee before filing the suit ? OPD

Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit ? OPD

Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit ? OPD

Relief.

The parties were given the opportunity to lead evidence and on conclusion of the proceedings vide judgment and decree dated 29.3.1994 the court of Addl. Senior Sub Judge, Sultanpur Lodhi decreed the suit of plaintiff Des Raj. Both the contesting defendants and the Municipal Committee were not satisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial Court and they filed two separate appeals before the learned District Judge, Kapurthala, who disposed of both the appeals vide common judgment dated 4.9.2000 and affirmed the findings of the trial Court.

Stilt not satisfied the defendants have filed the present two regular second appeals which I am disposing of with the assistance rendered by Mr. Naresh Prab-harkar, Advocate on behalf of Ajit Singh and Kamal Kumar, Mr, P.C. Goyal, Advocate on behalf of Municipal Committee and Mr. Ashok Sharma Nabhe-wala, Advocate on behalf of Des Raj.

Mr. Prabhakar and Mr. Goyal have raised a joint argument that the certificate produced by the plain-tiff/respondent does not prima facie prove that he was matriculate and as such he was not eligible to the post of Clerk. In support of their contention, they have drawn by attention to the circular issued by the Punjab School Education Board, My pertinent attention has been invited to item No. 8 at page 8, which runs as follows :-

"8. Hindi Sahitya Sam- Prathma Hindi (Matric Standard)" melan Paryag Allahabad

From this, the learned counsel for the appellants wanted to build an argument that in fact the qualification of the plaintiff/respondent is equivalent to Hindi in Matric Standard and he is not a full-fledged Matriculate. Therefore, he was never eligible to the post of Clerk and the resolution of the Committee is correct.

First of all, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants does not find favour with this Court. The reading of the circular along with documents Ex.PC and Ex.PX/1 would indicate that the plaintiff appeared in Hindi Sahitya Sammelean, Allahabad (Hindi Vishavvidhalya), Prathma as a regular candidate in the examination held in 1989 and he undertook the examination in different subjects, such as Sahitya, History, Geography, Mathematics. He also undertook the examination in optional subjects. He secured 393 marks out of 700 and. was placed in second division. Ex.PX/1 further shows that plaintiff Des Raj son of Shri Khusi Ram undertook the Punjabi examination of Punjab School Education Board in the month of March, 1991 and secured 55 marks out of 150 and a certificate to this effect was given to him on 11.7.1991. The combined reading of Ex.PC and Ex.PX/1 indicates that the plaintiff had the knowledge of Mathematics, History, Geograpy and Culture. He also passed the optional subjects. Since the plaintiff had passed Prathma from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, in these circumstances he had to undertake the examination of Punjabi subject which was conducted by the Punjab School Education Board and he was declared successful. The reading of both these documents, in the light of above qualifications and equivalence given in the circular, would leave no manner of doubt that Des Raj with all intents and purposes became matriculate. He was to be considered for the post of Clerk and this aspect of the case has been rightly considered by the courts below.

It was then submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is a discrepancy in the statement of the plaintiff and in fact the certificate Ex. PC is a forged document. This submission of the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted. The appellants have not made any attempt to summon any witness from the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. Moreover, the suit of the plaintiff further deserves success on a short ground that before passing the impugned resolutions dated 20.3.1992 the plaintiff was never given the opportunity of being heard as to why the resolution dated 12.2,1992 should be suspended. Reliance was also placed on Ram Bhagat Sharma and others v. State of Haryana and others 1997(4) RSJ 134, and it was submitted that the Hon''ble High Court has held in the said judgment that the examination of Prathma conducted by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad is not equivalent to Matriculation examination. This judgment is distinguishable on facts. The case pertains to the decision of the Haryana Government and has nothing to do with the decision taken by the Punjab State (School ?) Education Board.

In this view of the matter, both the appeals are hereby dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/- each.

Appeals dismissed.