JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Bihar School Examination Board and learned counsel for the Union of India.

2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiff of Title Suit No.5752 of 2014 for setting aside the order dated 01.12.2017 whereby the learned Sub Judge-I, Patna has dismissed the suit on the ground that Bihar School Examination Board (for short ‘BSEB’) and Postal Department, Government of India are necessary parties, but the suit has been filed without notice to them under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) and no prior permission has been taken by the plaintiff from the court for filing the same.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the suit has not been filed seeking any relief against the Postal Department, Government of India. Hence, notice under Section 80 of the CPC was not required. He contended that the object of Section 80 CPC is manifestly to give the Government or the public officer sufficient notice of the case, but the notice under Section 80 of the CPC would be of no use if no relief is sought against the Government or the public officer. He pleaded that the trial court has failed to appreciate that after filing of the suit, the notice had already been sent to the defendant and, therefore, they were in knowledge of the issue since 2008. He has further argued that an application for amendment in prayer was made. However, he conceded that he is not aware as to whether the prayer for amendment was ever pressed or not or whether any order on the petition filed by the plaintiff was ever passed by the trial court or not.

4. The BSEB and the respondent no.5 (Union of India) have contested the matter. They have filed their respective counter affidavits. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India (respondent no.5), it has been stated that the petitioner was appointed as Postal Assistant, Unnao in the year 1995 in the postal division, Kanpur (M) Division, Kanpur. During the initial verification of his testimonials, the Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna informed that the petitioner had obtained 756 marks and had passed in the First Division in his intermediate examination, 1992. Accordingly, the petitioner was selected and appointed as Postal Assistant in the department of Post. But, later on, while verification of marks was made, it was found that he had passed in third division, as it was reported by the Deputy Secretary, Bihar Vidalaya Pariksha Samiti (Uchcha Madhyamik) that the marks 756 as shown in the initial verification are bogus, He did not pass in first division in the examination. Accordingly, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet in terms of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 vide Memo dated 28.12.2007. After inquiry, the punishment order of dismissal was served upon him on 16.11.2009 from service with immediate effect. A revision petition was filed by the petitioner against his dismissal from service was also rejected by the competent authority vide order dated 20.04.2010.

5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 4, it has been stated that neither notice under Section 80 of the CPC was given to the defendants nor prior permission of the court was obtained by the petitioner before filing the title suit, which was mandatory requirement under the statute and no one can be waived from the mandatory provisions of the law.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the BSEB and the Union of India have submitted that since the Union of India and the BSEB are necessary parties, a notice under Section 80 of the CPC was a must. In absence of a notice under Section 80 of the CPC, the court has rightly dismissed the suit and the order does not suffer from any illegality.

7. The admitted facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Postal Assistant in the year 1995. The Postal Department sent his marks for v