Important Point – The jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit filed by the plaintiff is clearly barred in view of provisions of Section 59 of the said Act.

1. The order passed by the trial Court on the preliminary issue holding that it had jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the non-applicant is the subject matter of challenge in this Civil Revision Application at the instance of the defendants.

2. It is the case of the non-applicant-plaintiff that he is in service of Suvalal Patni Arts & Commerce College, Pulgaon, which is being run by Jawahar Education Society, Pulgaon. The plaintiff was holding the post of Principal since October, 2010. According to him, the applicants – defendants without being members of the management were restraining the plaintiff from discharging his duties as Principal. On 4th July, 2016, the defendants entered the office of the plaintiff and forced him to sign a letter of resignation from the post of Principal. Despite his protestations, the plaintiff was compelled to sign the said document. The plaintiff immediately lodged a report in that regard with the police authorities. He thereafter filed a suit for declaration that the alleged Letter of Resignation as well as the leave application obtained by the defendants by force on 4th July, 2016 were null and void and for restraining the defendants from disturbing the plaintiff from discharging his duties as Principal of the College.

3. On being served with the suit summons, the defendants raised a preliminary objection to the tenability of the suit under provisions of Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short, “the Code”], on the ground that according to the plaintiff, his resignation had been forcibly obtained by the defendants and against such an action, an appeal under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 [for short, “the said Act”] was maintainable. According to them, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. This application was opposed by the plaintiff and on 30th July, 2016, the trial Court directed framing of a preliminary issue as regards jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit.

4. The defendants examined defendant no.1 with regard to the aforesaid preliminary issue. He was cross-examined by the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not lead any evidence. The trial Court on consideration of the respective contentions held that the plaintiff had a right to withdraw the notice of resignation before it was accepted. On that count, the relationship between the parties as employer and employee was not severed, due to which there was no cause of action to file an appeal under Section 59 of the said Act before the University & College Tribunal. On that basis, the preliminary issue was answered by holding that Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Being aggrieved, the defendants have filed this Civil Revision Application.

5. Shri A.C. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the defendants, submitted that according to the prayers made in the suit filed by the plaintiff, it was clear that the plaintiff was seeking a declaration that the alleged letter of resignation dated 4th July, 2016 was null and void. In effect, the plaintiff was seeking adjudication on the validity of the act of otherwise termination of his services. He submitted that in so far as reliefs that could be sought under Section 59 of the said Act were concerned, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to go into those questions. It was urged that as the trial Court had framed a preliminary issue and the defendants had also led evidence, their defence as raised also deserves to be taken into consideration while deciding the issue of jurisdiction. He was critical of the fact that the Civil Court had entered into merits of the case pleaded by the plaintiff and in that process after taking into consideration irrelevant facts had assumed jurisdiction. According to him, the nature of relief sought by the plaintiff clearly ousted the jurisdiction of the Civil Court as such relief could be prayed for only before the forum provided under Section 59 of the said Act. In support