Paresh Upadhyay, J.

1. Heard Mr. Hemang R. Rawal learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. A.R. Thacker for the contesting respondent-University. This Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Anjaria) had, vide order dated 26-3-2013 admitted this Second Appeal, on the following question of law:

"(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case when concededly in view of Sec. 8 of the Gujarat Universities Services Tribunal Act, 1993 the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and the Court below having answered the said issue in affirmative, could still have gone into merits and still could have been given findings on controversy?"

2.1. Before the above question is considered and answered, the relevant facts are required to be noted, which are as under.

2.2. The present appellant was appointed by the Saurashtra University as Project Officer, vide order dated 30-6-1992. Pursuant to the said appointment order, when the appellant remained present to resume his duties, the University gave a communication dated 9-7-1992, that since there were only two posts of Project Officers and two persons were already working on those posts, the appointment given by the University to the appellant was erroneous, and therefore, the same was cancelled.

2.3. The above communication dated 9-7-1992 of the University and the action was challenged by the appellant in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot by preferring Regular Civil Suit No. 695 of 1992.

2.4. The respondent-University filed written statement inter alia stating therein, that the appellant can join his duties. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff - the present appellant had joined the service as Project Officer on 3-11-1992.

2.5. There is no controversy with regard to the appellant being in continuous service of the University from 3-11-1992.

2.6. The appellant gave an application for voluntary retirement on 7-5-2013. The same was accepted by the Competent Authority and an office order came to be passed by the University on 8-8-2013 relieving the appellant from the service of the University with effect from 10-8-2013.

2.7. One of the contentions of the University before the trial Court was to the effect that, the appellant-plaintiff being an employee of the University, in view of Sec. 8 of the Gujarat Universities Services Tribunal Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), the said Tribunal had the jurisdiction and further that in view of Sec. 13 of the said Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred. The trial Court framed the issue and one of the issues was to the effect as to whether it had jurisdiction to try the suit or not.

2.8. One of the issues framed by the trial Court (Issue No. 4) was, as to whether it had the jurisdiction to hear the suit. The said issue was answered in negative.

2.9. Other issues on merits were also framed by the Court and they are also answered on merits, including that the plaintiff - the appellant had no case on merits.

2.10. Thus, the trial Court on one hand held that it did not have the jurisdiction to try the suit, and at the same time it tried and decided the suit on merits against the plaintiff by the same judgment and order dated 14-12-2006.

2.11. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 14-12-2006 passed by the learned 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot in Regular Civil Suit No. 695 of 1992, the plaintiff had preferred the Regular Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2007 in the Court of District Judge, Rajkot, where the bone contention of the present appellant, was to the effect that, after having held that the trial Court did not have jurisdiction to try the suit, on merits of the matter the Court ought not to have observed anything. This contention is rejected by the appellate Court below, against which the present Second Appeal is filed under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

2.12. This Court has formulated the substantial question of law which is quoted above.

3. Learned Advocate for the appel