AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.(Oral)—Both the petitioners have had to fight a long-drawn legal battle to stay on in service under the respondent State authorities because the respondent authorities would insist on dismissing them on one ground or the other but the Courts have given directions under writ jurisdiction which did help them to maintain some kind of status under the respondents.
The core issue related to the correctness or otherwise of the so-called appointment letters issued in their favour in the very first place because the respondents took a stand that such a letter was a forged letter.
In the last of the writ applications, which was registered as CWJC No. 7368 of 2003 and decided on 27.8.2010 (Annexure- 6), looking at the nature of the controversy, the learned Single Judge permitted the petitioners to file a suit before an appropriate civil court. A suit was filed, which was registered as Title Suit No. 6 of 2011. After due hearing, the court of 2nd Munsif, Bhojpur at Ara decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner on 30.11.2013. It ordered rejoining of the petitioners as well as payment of past salary etc.
The legal question which arises for consideration is whether the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will act as a forum for execution of judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif. When such a question is put to the counsel, he has no answer to offer for the legal question so raised.
Since the Code of Civil Procedure is a complete code by itself, therefore, this Court will not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of the judgment and decree of the Munsif. The forum chosen by the petitioners obviously is a ill-advised forum
Writ is dismissed.