Back
1998 Supreme(Mad) 1528
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUBRAMANI
Most Rev. Bishop of Kottar Manager, St. Aloysius School Eluvuvilai & Others
Versus
C. Gnanasigamoni, Secretary, Parish Council St. Aloysium Church Eluvuvilai
C.R.P. No. 3216 of 1998 & C.M.P. No. 16051 of 1998
Decided On :Decided on : 11-11-1998
For the Petitioners:Isac Mohanlal, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Liagat Ali, Advocate.
The court has the inherent power to strike out a plaint if it is satisfied that the suit is frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of the process of the court.
Headnote:
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - ORDER 39 RULE 1 - INJUNCTION - APPOINTMENT OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER - LOCUS STANDI - SUIT FILED BY SECRETARY OF PARISH COUNCIL - NO PERSONAL INTEREST - BONA FIDE ACTION - INTERIM ORDER - MISUSE OF COURT PROCESS - STRIKING OUT OF PLAINT - INHERENT POWERS OF COURT.
Fact of the Case:
A suit was filed by the Secretary of a Parish Council challenging the appointment of a Physical Education Teacher in a Catholic School. The Secretary claimed that the appointment was made in violation of the rules formulated by the Bishop and that the appointed teacher was not a member of the Parish. The teacher, who was the third defendant in the suit, filed a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the interim injunction granted by the lower court.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Secretary of the Parish Council did not have the locus standi to file the suit as he had no personal interest in the appointment of the teacher. The court also held that the suit was filed only with the intention of getting an interim order through the process of the court and that the action was not bona fide. The court further held that the self-framed rules of the Bishop could not be enforced in a court of law and that the appointment of the teacher was made in accordance with the relevant statute.
Issues: 1. Whether the Secretary of the Parish Council had the locus standi to file the suit challenging the appointment of the Physical Education Teacher? 2. Whether the suit was filed with the intention of getting an interim order through the process of the court and whether the action was bona fide? 3. Whether the self-framed rules of the Bishop could be enforced in a court of law? 4. Whether the appointment of the teacher was made in accordance with the relevant statute?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Secretary of the Parish Council did not have the locus standi to file the suit as he had no personal interest in the appointment of the teacher. The court relied on the principle that a person must have a legal right or interest in the subject matter of the suit in order to have the locus standi to file the suit. 2. The court held that the suit was filed only with the intention of getting an interim order through the process of the court and that the action was not bona fide. The court relied on the principle that the court has the inherent power to strike out a plaint if it is satisfied that the suit is frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of the process of the court. 3. The court held that the self-framed rules of the Bishop could not be enforced in a court of law. The court relied on the principle that the rules were not made by a competent authority and that they were not in accordance with the relevant statute. 4. The court held that the appointment of the teacher was made in accordance with the relevant statute. The court relied on the principle that the Educational Agency was entitled to appoint a qualified person and that the appointment was made in accordance with the relevant statute.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition, set aside the interim order, and dismissed the interim application filed by the respondent. The court also directed the lower court to strike off the plaint.
1. This revision is filed by the defendants in O.S. No. 213 of 1998 on the file of District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai. The Revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order in I.A. 346 of 1998.
2. Third petitioner is the third defendant in the suit. She was appointed as Physical Instructor in the second respondent School. There is another candidate by name Ms. Pushpalatha for the same post but she was not selected. She filed a suit in O.S. No. 142 of 1998 on the file of District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai on 7.4.1998 seeking for declaration that she alone was eligible for appointment to the post and the third petitioner herein is not eligible to be appointed and the appointment is null and void and also for mandatory injunction directing the school management to appoint her to the post. In that suit, she also filed I.A. No. 305 of 1998 seeking for interim injunction. But no interim order was granted.
3. Pushpalathas brother Thambiraj is the Joint Secretary in Parish Counsel Elavuvilai. The Secretary of the said Parish Counsel thereafter filed the present suit as O.S. No. 213 of 1998 for the same relief. It is stated in the plaint that so far as appointment in Catholic Schools are concerned the first defendant who is the Bishop has formulated Rules and Regulations, according to which whenever vacancies arise in any Catholic Schools, the Seniority list of respective Parish among the qualified candidate s is to be prepared by the Parish Priest in consultation with the concerned Parish Council. It is said that priority shall be given to the senior most qualified candidate. It is the case of the respondent herein that third petitioner is not a member of the Elavuvilai, Parish since she got married with Williams on 9.12.1989, who is of a nearby locality. It ‘is said that third petitioner seems to be a member of the said Parish in view of her marriage and therefore she cannot be in the list of members of Elavuvilai Parish and lost her rights. Without considering the said fact, second respondent has appointed third petitioner as physical Education Teacher. It is according to the respondent, against the rules prepared by Bishop himself and as Secretary of the Parish Council, he is entitled to challenge the act. It is his further case that other eligible candidates’ rights have been affected and therefore the suit was filed to declare the appointment of third petitioner in the above school as null and void and for a decree for mandatory injunction, directing petitioners I and 2 herein to prepare Seniority list as contemplated as per the Rules and appoint eligible qualified candidate as Physical Education Teacher.
4. Along with the suit, interim application was filed and ad interim injunction was granted in which the management is not made a party. In the injunction application, third petitioner was alone impleaded initially. But as per the direction of the Court in a revision filed by the very same petitioners, the ad interim injunction was vacated and the lower Court was directed to dispose of the injunction application on merits within a specified time. Thereafter the impugned order was passed.
5. Since Caveat was entered by the respondent, the entire revision was heard at the time of admission itself.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent has no locus standi to institute the suit and he is not an aggrieved person. Even according to the respondent what he wanted is only to prepare a seniority list as per the rules and therefore there cannot be any injunction against third petitioner so long as it is not prepared. It is further contended that for a suit for declaration plaintiff must show the ingredients under Section Relief Act and the same is absent. That apart respondent herein is only a puppet in the hands of other plaintiff Pushpalatha, who has already filed a suit and failed to apply interim application. Pushpalathas brother is the Joint Secretary in the Parish
