The procedures under the Code of Civil Procedure are essential for the administration of justice in suits involving the government.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Civil Second Appeal is preferred against judgement/order dated 27th March 2018, passed by Principal District Judge, Anantnag (for short “First Appellate Court”) on a Civil First Appeal, bearing File no.02/Appeal, titled as Shahzada Iqbal v. State of J&K and others, as also against the judgement and decree dated 6th February 2015, passed by Sub Judge, Anantnag (for short “Trial Court”) on a civil suit titled as Anjum Showkat v. State of J&K and others, and for setting aside the same.

2. I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter.

3. A civil suit titled as Anjum Showkat v. Commissioner and others, was filed by respondent no.5 herein before the Trial Court, in which present appellant was not a party defendant, which was decreed vide judgement/order dated 6th February 2015. As an aggrieved person, present appellant filed an Appeal before the First Appellate Court. The appeal did not succeed. So, the instant Civil Second Appeal is against concurrent findings.

4. According to counsel for appellant, following are the substantial questions of law for deciding the appeal in hand:

(1) The impugned order is suffering from perversity;

(2) The impugned order is suffering non-application of mind;

(3) The Ld. District Judge Anantnag has not returned any finding on facts in issue or on the legal issues involved in the case;

(4) The impugned order is cryptic, mechanical in nature and prejudicial to the rights and interests of the appellant;

(5) The Lower Appellate Court has upheld a collusive/admission decree which has been obtained by fraud;

(6) The collusive/admission decree passed without hearing the affected party/necessary party being not executable deserved to be set aside but the impugned order dismissed the appeal;

(7) The court below has neither satisfied itself about the correctness, genuineness and the fairness of decree in respect of facts, procedure and law, nor the court below has discussed the legal validity and legal value of decree in the eyes of law;

(8) The Ld. District Judge has not returned any finding on the issue of fixing of the relevant date of eligibility in the impugned order;

(9) The Lower Appellate Court has also not taken time to see what is the status of the Enquiry and why orders were not passed on the enquiry reports;

(10) The impugned order does not discuss the issue of residence of the private respondent when it is a condition of eligibility;

(11) Whether instead of participating in selection process the appellant ought to have challenged the Advertisement Notice, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case;

(12) Whether the entire selection process and the issuance of belated advertisement notice is in compliance with the norms and spirit of ReT Scheme;

(13) The Trial court has ignored the public policy;

(14) The decree without declaring the abeyance order as null and void and without cancelling the said order, directed the official respondents to issue engagement order in favour of the plaintiff/private respondent;

(15) Whether the suit of service matter is maintainable against government in present form.

5. The instant appeal has been filed on 1st June 2018, but substantial questions of law have not been framed. It is submission of counsel for appellant that afore-quoted questions are substantial questions of law.

6. Let me first take up Issue no.15. Insofar as suits by or against the Government is concerned, Sections 79 to 82 of the Code of Civil Procedure provide for general principles concerning suits involving governmental authority and Order 27, CPC, deals with the procedure to implement the said sections. The suits involving government are special cases and not, therefore, the procedure followed is different from what is followed in ordinary civil cases. An example of this is Section 80 CPC, which mandates the party filing a suit against government to deliver a notice maintaining the plaintiff's intention tow months before the institution of the suit. In ordinary suits,