Manisha Devi vs Rekha and Others

Prakash Gupta, J.—This second appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 21/11/2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Rajgarh, District Alwar (hereinafter referred to as ''the appellate Court'') in civil regular appeal No. 17/13 whereby, the appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the defendant-respondents and set aside the Judgment and decree dated 06/02/2013 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 3, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as ''the trial Court'') in civil suit No. 34/69/2011.

Briefly stated facts are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction wherein it is stated that the plaintiff-appellant is a graduate and having two years teaching experience and three months survey experience. On the other hand the defendant-respondent No. 1 has passed only secondary class. In spite of that the defendant-respondent Nos. 2 to 6 wrongly selected defendant-respondent No. 1. According to the circular dated 15/09/2003 of the State Government, the candidate who was having higher education should have been granted preference. But ignoring the aforesaid circular a wrongly resolution was passed in the general meeting of Gram Panchayat Alai on 13/03/2010 and in pursuance to the said resolution the defendant-respondent No. 6 was granted appointment on the post of Aanganbari worker on 14/06/2010 which is per se illegal. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff-appellant submitted her application for the Aanganbari worker as per the circular dated 29/11/2006, before the Gram Panchayat Alai. In the resolution dated 03/12/2006 her name was mentioned at serial No. 2. But the defendant Nos. 2 to 5 ignoring the higher qualification of the plaintiff-appellant had passed resolution in favour of the defendant-respondent No. 1 against which the plaintiff-appellant submitted objections before the defendant-respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 6. Vide order dated 03/12/2006 while cancelling the selection process of the defendant-respondent No. 1 directed to proceed further as per the rules. But the Gram Panchayat again by violating the rules selected defendant-respondent No. 1.

The defendants-respondent Nos. 2 to 6 resisted the suit by filing written statement wherein it was pleaded that the plaintiff has not submitted documentary evidence with regard to the qualification of B.A. The defendants have proceeded according to the rules. The Gram Panchayat Alai is necessary party in the suit and without impleading the Gram Panchayat Alai, suit is not maintainable. The defendant-respondent No. 1 also resisted the suit by filing the written statement wherein it is stated that the defendant-respondent No. 1 was selected on basis of her qualification.

The trial Court decreed the suit on 06/02/2013 by which while quashing and setting aside the order dated 14/06/2010, the defendant-respondent No. 3 was directed to grant appointment to the plaintiff-appellant on the post of Aanganbari worker in the village Narayanpur. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 06/02/2013 the defendant-respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal before the appellate Court and the learned appellant Court while allowing the appeal quashed and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court on 21/11/2013. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the appellate Court, the plaintiff-appellant preferred this second appeal.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant that the learned appellate Court failed to appreciate the fact that the Gram Panchayat Alai was not appointing authority. The Gram Panchayat Alai is not necessary party. Thus, the findings recorded by the learned appellate Court in respect of issue No. 5 and 6 are perverse and illegal. It is submitted that admittedly, the appellant-plaintiff is having higher qualification then defendant-respondent No. 1. Thus, considering the higher qualification the plaintiff-appellant is entitled for appointment on the post of Aanganbari worker. The trial Court after detailed discussion on every issue rightly passed the judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff-appellant but the learned appellate Court set aside the decree and judgment of the trial Court on surmises and conjectures and the first appellate Court failed to consider the facts and circumstances of the case and also legal aspects of the case. It is submitted that the application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC was filed wherein an objection was raised that Gram Panchayat Alia has not been impleaded therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed. The same was dismissed and the order of dismissal was not challenged further, therefore, the plea of non joinder of Gram Panchayat is not having any substance.

On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment and decree of the appellate Court and urged to dismiss this appeal.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record carefully.

It is revealed from the record that deciding issue No. 5 and 6 against the plaintiff-appellant, the appellate Court recorded the following findings:

Similarly, while deciding the issue No. 1 and 2, the learned appellate Court recorded the following findings:--

Indisputedly, vide Order dated 03/12/06 while staying the proceedings, the selection of the defendant-respondent No. 1 was cancelled with a direction to convene the Gram Panchatyat meeting and proceed further as per the rules. Thereafter, on 13/03/2010 a new proposal (Ex. -1) was taken and the defendant-respondent No. 1 was selected to the post of the Aanganbari worker and was appointed in pursuance of the said proposal taken by the Gram Sabha. In view of this the Gram Panchayat Alai was a necessary party to the suit. In view of the findings recorded by the trial Court also at page 14 to 17 the Gram Panchayat Alai appears to be necessary party in the present suit.

This court find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the aforesaid findings of the appellate Court, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned Judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court.

The learned counsel for the appellant has also failed to point out any question of law much less substantial question of law in the present appeal, therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed, and is accordingly dismissed.