KUDAL, J: —This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Jaipur, City dated 13-11-1976, whereby the judgment and decree of the learned Munsiff, Jaipur East, Jaipur dated 9-3-1976 were reversed.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the plaintiff Mohan Melwani filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the University of Rajasthan Jaipur on 10-12-1975 It was contended by the plaintiff that he was appointed as Stenographer on 5-2-1958, and was ordered to be promoted as Stenographer Cr. I with effect from 17-7-1965. The plaintiff was promoted as officiating section Officer on 23-10-1973. The Departmental Promotion Committee constituted under Rule 20 of the Rajasthan University Employees (non-teaching) Recruitment Rule (hereinafter to be referred to as Recruitment Rules), selected the plaintiff for the post of Section Officer, and he was placed on probation for one year wish effect from 4-3 1974 Later on, the plaintiffs probation period was extended for a further period of six months. The extended probation period expired on 3-9-1975. The plaintiffs contention is that in terms of Rule 33 (4) of the Recruitment Rules, it should be deemed that he was comfirmed after the lapse of two months of the probation period. Two months after the end of the probation period expired on 3-11-1975. On 9-12-1975 the plaintiff was reverted as Stenographer Gr. I. The plaintiff prayed that the order of 9-12 1975 be declared null and void and he be declared as a confirmed Section Officer, and the defendant be restrained by means of a permanent injunction from implementing the order of reversion.

3. The defendant, however, contended that the work of the plaintiff was not found satisfactory and that is why his probation period was initially extended for six months, and as there was no improvement he was ordered to be reverted to his substantive post of Stenographer Gr. I. It was also contended that the Vice-Chancellor had ordered that the Recruitment Rules would be kept in abeyance with effect from 23-7-1975, and that as these rules had no applicability, the plaintiff did not and could not derive any advantage of Rule 33(4) of the Recruitment Rules. The decision of the Vice-Chancellor dated 23-7-1975 was, it was contended, approved by the Syndicate on 21-11-1975 It was also contended that the order of reversion was not justiciable and could not be challenged in a court of law It was also contended that any person aggrieved or dissatisfied with an order passed by the administration could prefer an appeal, and in that view of the matter, the plaintiff should have sought his remedy by preferring an appeal before the authority mentioned under the said rules and the suit so brought by him was per so not maintainable

4. The learned Munsiff framed the following issues on 5-1-1976:—

(1) Whether order No. 25639-43 Est dated the 9th December, 1975 is illegal, invalid, inoperative and if so what is its effect on the suit?

(2) Whether Rules 33 (iv) of the Rajasthan University Employees (non-teaching) Recruitment Rules ceased to apply to the employees of the University in view of the decision taken by the Vice-Chancellor and further approved by the Syndicate vide Resolution No. 15 dated 21-11-1975 and if so to what effect on the suit ?

(3) Whether the suit is not maintainable as mentioned in para No. 1 and 4 of the additional pleas of the written statement?

(4) Relief?

5. The plaintiff examined himself and closed his evidence. On behalf of the defendant, DW/1 Vasudeo Kumar, DW/2 M.K. Mukherji, DW/3 Makla Zutsi, DW/4 Premchand, DW/5 Ramesh Chander Srivastava and DW/6 Natwar Sharma were examined. The learned trial court dismissed the plaintiffs suit on 9-3-1976. The plaintiff feeling aggrieved filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Jaipur City. The plaintiffs appeal was allowed on 13-11-1976, and the plaintiffs suit was decreed with costs throughout.

6. The University of Rajasthan feeling aggri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document