AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sureshwar Thakur, J.—Both these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment as they arise out of a common judgment.
These appeals are directed against the impugned judgment and decree, rendered on 1st June, 2007, by the learned District Judge, Mandi in Civil Suit No. 8 of 2005, whereby, the learned District Judge, Mandi decreed the suit instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 1 lac with proportionate cost and interest at the rate of 6% from the date of decree on account of damages.
The brief facts, of the case, are that the plaintiff joined Maharaja Laxaman Sen Memorial College as lecturer in English in the year 1976 and after 11 years he became the Principal of the said college. In the year 1995, the defendants No. 1 and 2 established Lalit Sen Institute of Business Studies (in short LSIBS) which later on renamed as LSIBET and started professional courses such as BBA, Senior Secondary (science), B. Ed., BCA and B.P. Ed., under self financing scheme. According to the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 decided to have full time Director to man the academic, financial as well as administrative affairs of the said LSIBET and the meeting was held on 14.12.2002 as the plaintiff while discharging the twin duties of Principal (MLSM) as well as that of Director (LSIBET) boosted the prestige of both the institutions in the estimation of general public, University and the government of Himachal Pradesh. Despite the decision of defendant No. 1 regarding the appointment of full time Director in LSIBET having been taken on 14.12.2002, no appointment could be made in the said post for the next four and half months, when the plaintiff retired from the post of Principal as well as Part Time Director on 30.4.2003, the defendant No. 1 appointed plaintiff as Director of LSIBET vide order dated 1.5.2003. It is pleaded that the plaintiff assumed his duties as Director LSIBET w.e.f. 1.5.2003 pursuant to above offer. The appointment of the plaintiff was duly endorsed by the H.P. University as well as department of education. It is pleaded that defendant No. 2 held its meeting on 31.8.2003 at Chandigarh and resolved by a majority vote, to abolish the post of Director of LSIBET with immediate effect without assigning any reason, as well as in gross violation of terms of resolution dated 14.12.2002 adopted by defendant without making any alternate and effective mechanisms to run the said LSIBET. Pursuant to the above resolution, dated 31.8.2003, defendant No. 1 served a thirty days notice of termination on the plaintiff vide letter dated 11.9.2003. This action on the part of the defendants is highly arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and also against the public interest. After the expiry of the above arbitrary notice dated 11.9.2203, the defendant No. 1 directed the plaintiff vide letter dated 14.10.2003 to handover the charge of LSIBET to the Chairperson i.e. defendant No. 2 which was done by the plaintiff under duress and protest. As a fall out of the above illegal and arbitrary abolition of the post of Director, LSIBET, defendant No. 1 was left with none to pursue the pending matters with the government of H.P., H.P. University and others, statutory bodies and as such the defendant No. 1 asked the plaintiff to attend the ensuing meeting on 15.10.2003 to be chaired by the Principal Secretary (Education), H.P. Shimla vide letter dated 14.10.2003. The plaintiff attended the meeting and submitted the report on 1.11.2003 to defendant No. 1. The plaintiff further expressed worries and imminent losses which might be caused to the institute in view of the illegal and arbitrary decision of defendant No. 2 abolishing the post of Director without having considered the legal, academic, financial and administrative implications of their said decision. Defendant No. 1 also issued letter of thanks dated 8.11.2003. The plaintiff broadly agreeing with suggestion of the defendant vide letter dated 4.11.2003, further expressed apprehension regarding the future of the students and financial losses etc., likely to be suffered by the defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 had to write a letter dated 5.3.2004 to the Controller of Examination, H.P. University, Shimla so as to help them in coping with the difficult situations. The plaintiff has also made reference to various correspondences. It is further pleaded that feeling aggrieved by the action of the defendants, the plaintiff filed civil suit for declaration and injunction against them in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Divisions) Sundernagar which was allowed to be withdrawn vide order dated 1.6.2005 and the defendants No. 1 and 2 have now appointed defendant No. 3 as part time Director w.e.f. 2.6.2005, the cause of action accrued in favour of the plaintiff on 31.8.2003 when the post of Director of LSIBET was abolished by the defendants arbitrarily on 15.9.2003 and 14.10.2005 when the plaintiff was directed to handover the charge of Director of LSIBET also.
The defendants resisted and contested the suit of the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 filed the written statement wherein he had taken preliminary objections inter alia maintainability, suit having not been properly instituted, locus standi, cause of action and estoppel etc. On merits, it was submitted that the managing committee of MLSM, College, Sundernagar is the only appointing authority of any person, as such, defendant No. 1 has no role in the appointment of Director by the LSIBET. The Managing Committee of MLSM has not appointed the plaintiff as Director nor the plaintiff entered into any agreement with the Managing Committee MLSM College, Sundernagar, thus the appointment of the plaintiff as Director of LSIBET is no appointment as per the rule framed. It is admitted that the plaintiff assumed duty of Director LSIBET w.e.f. 1.5.2003. However, the appointment of Director was no appointment in the eyes of law as the same was not made as per rules. It is also admitted that a meeting of the Managing Committee of MLSM college was held on 31.8.2003 at Chandigarh and the post of the Director of LSIBET was abolished and the plaintiff was duly intimated forthwith. Moreover, 30 days notice was served on the plaintiff on 11.9.2003 by the President, Managing Committee, MLSM College Sundernagar. It is denied that the plaintiff under duress and protest had handed over the charge of Director LSIBET but the President of the Managing Committee has taken over the charge of the Director of LSIBET.
The defendants No. 2 and 3 filed the separate written statements and took preliminary objections as are taken by defendant No. 1. On merits, the defence of defendants No. 2 and 3 was similar to the one as taken by defendant No. 1. It is admitted that the plaintiff was sent as special representative of the President of the Managing Committee of MSLM, College, Sundernagar to attend the meeting held under the Chairmanship of Principal Secretary of Education to the Government of Himachal Pradesh.
The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of the defendants, wherein, he denied the contents of the written statement and re-affirmed and reasserted the averments made in the plaint.
On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck following issues inter se the parties in contest:
"1. Whether the resolution dated 31.3.2004, is legally null and void and plaintiff is liable to be restored to its original position, as alleged? OPP
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of damages to the tune of Rs. 9,52,000/-, as alleged? OPP
Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD
Whether the suit is not properly instituted and plaintiff has no locus standi to institute the suit? OPD
Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendant No. 1? OPD
Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct by filing the present suit, as alleged? OPD
Relief."
On Appraisal of the evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of damages to the tune of Rs. 1 lac..
Now, the instant appeals have been instituted by both the plaintiff and the defendants before this Court, assailing the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, in its impugned judgment and decree.
The learned counsel for the defendant has urged that the findings recorded by the learned District Judge on issues No. 1 and 2 are infirm. He contends that the findings of the learned District Judge on the contentious issues be reversed by this Court.
The learned counsel for the plaintiff has contended that the compensation as assessed by the learned District Judge in its impugned judgment is not anvilled upon a proper appreciation of the evidence adduced on record by the plaintiff nor on an appropriate application of law germane to it.
This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side, has with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record.
The plaintiff was appointed as Director of LSIBET in a meeting held on 14.12.2002 by the defendants. However, at the time of his coming to be appointed as Director, LSIBET, he had been also working as Principal, MLSM, College, Sundernagar. The factum probandum which requires to be clinched is whether the act of the defendants in abolishing the post of Director, LSIBET, Sundernagar is tenable or not. The post of the Director, LSIBET was abolished in a meeting of the Managing Committee of the MLSM held on 31.8.2003 at Chandigarh wherein under a resolution comprised in Ex. P-5 a decision was taken to abolish the post of Director, SLIBET, Sundernagar. With the abolition of the post of Director, SLIBET by a resolution comprised in Ex. P-5 rendered on 31.8.2003 by the defendants, obviously, it sequeled the removal of the plaintiff from the post of the Director, SLIBET and it further sequeled the institution at his behest of a suit for compensation as damages for his unlawful and illegal termination arising from the untenable act of the defendants in abolishing the post of the Director, SLIBET.
Before proceeding to adjudicate the contentious factum probandum qua the legality of the act of the defendants in abolishing the post of Director, SLIBET against which the plaintiff was appointed and was purportedly unwarrantedly removed, it is also necessary to pre-resolve the issue qua the legality of the initial appointment of the plaintiff to the post of Director SLIBET, Sundernagar. For resolving the conundrum qua the legality of the appointment of the plaintiff as Director SLIBET, Sundernagar, it is imperative to advert to Office Order of 1st May, 2003 comprised in Ex. P-2 in pursuance whereto the plaintiff was appointed as Director SLIBET, Sundernagar and whereafter the plaintiff had joined as Director, SLIBET, Sundernagar on 1.5.2003 as is evident from Ex. P3. The Advisory Committee comprised of three members, namely, Shri R.K. Kamla Singh, Shri R.K. Aggarwal and Dr. K. Pandya, who also happened to be the members of the Managing Committee of SLIBET, Sundernagar. They, too under Ex. P-1 rendered a recommendation in the meeting of the Advisory Committee held on 14th December, 2002 for the plaintiff being appointed as Director SLIBET, Sundernagar. Since, it is uncontroverted that the aforesaid persons who constituted the Advisory Committee are also the members of the Managing Committee of SLIBET, Sundernagar, hence, when they proceeded to, on 14.12.2002, render a resolution comprised in Ex. P-1 in the meeting held at Chandigarh, wherein they recommended the appointment of the plaintiff as Director SLIBET, Sundernagar, the said recommendation cannot be omitted to be imputed the fervour and probative strength which it holds. More so, when in pursuance to Ex. P-2, the plaintiff joined as Director SLIBET, Sundernagar on 1.5.2003 as is evident from Ex. P-3, and there being no remonstrance on the part of the defendants to his joining. Consequently, with the High Powered Committee, whose members are also the members of the Managing Committee of the SLIBET, Sundernagar, their recommendations cannot be either shown levity of disregard nor discarded, rather their opinion and recommendations comprised in Annexure P-1 are to be revered and vindicated. Cumulatively, then given the recommendations of the High Powered Advisory Committee as also given the fact of the plaintiff having joined as Director of the SLIBET under Ex. P-3 on 1.5.2003 without any remonstrance on the part of the defendants, estops the defendants to contend that the initial appointment of the plaintiff as Director SLIBET, Sundernagar was not in accordance with law.
The post of Director SLIBET, Sundernagar was abolished under resolution comprised in Ex. P-5. In the event of resolution comprised in Ex. P-5 being beyond the contemplation of the germane rules, inasmuch as theirs not vesting any empowerment or authorization in the Managing Committee which ultimately resolved to abolish the post of the Director, SLIBET, Sundernagar with its cascading effect upon the fate of the plaintiff, inasmuch his being disentitled to hold the post of Director SLIBET, Sundernagar, then the plaintiff would have fervour in his grievance that, hence, his suit for damages arising from his being unlawfully removed from the post of Director, is maintainable.
In testing the legality or the tenacity of the resolution of the Managing Committee which abolished the post of Director SLIBET, Sundernagar under resolution Ex. P-5, it is necessary to advert to Ex. P-17 which is the compendium of authorizations conferred upon the Managing Committee of the Maharaja Lakshman Sen Memorial College qua the subjects enunciated in it, besides is communicative of the functions and powers of the Managing Committee. Even though, in Clause 10, a power is vested in the Managing Committee to appoint, dismiss, suspend or punish or grant leave of absence to all the professors, lecturers and employees of the management, yet there is no specific recital in Ex. P-17 vesting a power in the Managing Committee, MLSM, College to abolish any post. Nonetheless, the validation to act of the defendants in abolishing the post of Director SLIBET, Sundernagar, against which the plaintiff stood appointed is anvilled upon Clause 14 which vests a power in the Managing Committee of MLSM, College, Sundernagar to, by a resolution amend the compendium of rules comprised in Ex. P-17. Hence, with the vestment of power in the Managing Committee, MLSM, College, Sundernagar by Clause 14 of the compendium of the rules of the said institution comprised in Ex. P17, the Managing Committee rendered the resolution aforesaid to amend the rules, inasmuch as it proceeded to, hence, abolish the post of Director SLIBET, Sundernagar even, in the absence of no explicit authorization/vestment of power to do so otherwise being vested by Ex. P-17 in the Managing Committee. Assuming that the Managing Committee proceeded by a resolution to amend the rules to purportedly incorporate therein a rule by an apposite resolution for vesting a power/authorization in the Managing Committee qua abolition of the post of Director SLIBET, Sundernagar yet the said amendment carried by a resolution to the said effect would take effect and carry tenacity only in the event of such a special resolution with its concomitantly amending the rules comprised in compendium Ex. P-17, having come to be approved by the Himachal Pradesh University as mandated by the proviso to Clause 14 of the compendium of rules. However, there is no material or evidence on record depicting the fact that the special resolution, if any, rendered by the Managing Committee whereby it sought to amend the compendium of Rules comprised in Ex. P-17, relating to conferment of authorization and powers upon the Managing Committee by proposing through a resolution the vestment of a authorization in the Managing Committee to abolish the post created under a resolution rendered by the Advisory Committee, SLIBET, Sunder Nagar, was approved by the Himachal Pradesh University. For dearth of evidence qua the aforesaid facet, the apposite conclusion which can be formed is that the act of the defendants in abolishing the post of the Director SLIBET, Sundernagar against which the plaintiff stood appointed is wholly permeated with the taint of illegality, constituted by infringement of proviso to Clause 14 of the compendium of rules comprised in Ex. P-17. Such transgression sequeled especially when the plaintiff had a legitimate expectation to complete his tenure as Director SLIBET, Sundernagar his being possessed with all ability and skills, with whose possession, he stood appointed, his abrupt termination by a legally flawed resolution of the Managing Committee, renders maintainable his suit for damages. Concomitantly, the findings rendered by the learned trial Court on issue No. 1 for the reasons drawn by it as also for the foregoing reasons does not suffer from any infirmity.
Having determined that the suit of the plaintiff is maintainable for compensation arising from his illegal termination as Director SLIBET, Sundernagar, it is incumbent upon this Court to adjudge whether the compensation as assessed by the learned trial Court is just and fair. It is admitted that the plaintiff''s length of service as Director, SLIBET, Sundernagar was minimal besides in face thereof and in the face of it having been omitted to be stated by the plaintiff in his deposition that he neither stood gainfully employed during the interregnum since his unlawful termination as Director SLIBET, Sundernagar by the defendants till the institution of the suit as also when he omitted to depose that he would not come to be gainfully employed in any other educational institution, for the period of co-terminus of his tenure as Director SLIBET, Sundernagar. Consequently for omission of a statement in the deposition of the plaintiff qua the aforesaid facets, the compensation as damages as claimed by the plaintiff were both excessive as well as exorbitant. In sequel, the quantification of compensation payable to the plaintiff arising from his illegal termination as Director SLIBET, Sundernagar, as done by the learned trial Court is a fair, just and reasonable assessment. More so, when the assessment of damages as compensation as payable to the plaintiff is anvilled upon a balanced and a wholesome appreciation of the evidence on record besides on an apposite application of the germane law to it. Consequently, this Court cannot but form a conclusion for the reasons aforesaid, of the findings of the learned trial Court being anchored upon proper appreciation of the evidence on record and the said findings do not suffer from any perversity and absurdity of the mis-appreciation and non appreciation of the evidence on record.
For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in these appeals which are dismissed accordingly. The judgment of the learned trial Court is affirmed and maintained. No costs. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.