Back
1987 Supreme(Mad) 277
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. M. NATRAJAN
Prof. S. Jeyasingh & Another
Versus
S. Belmon Thampi & Others
C.R.P. Nos. 3010 & 3011 of 1987
Decided On :Decided on: 26-08-1987
M/s. R, Gandhi, N. Paul Vasanthakumar, M.N. Mohamed Ali, K. Ravichandrababu & T.S. Sivagnanam, for Petrs.
P. Ananthakrishna Nair for Respts.
A suit is not maintainable under Section 9 of the CPC unless the plaintiff has a legal right which is capable of being enforced in a court of law.
Headnote:
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 9 - MAINTAINABILITY OF SUIT - CONTRACT OF PERSONAL SERVICE - SPECIFIC ENFORCEMENT - INJUNCTION - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE - HEADS OF UNDERGRADUATE DEPARTMENTS IN COLLEGE - ABOLITION OF POSTS - APPOINTMENT OF SENIOR PROFESSORS - VALIDITY - CONSTITUTION OF DIOCESE - GOVERNING BODY - EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - APPROVAL OF APPOINTMENTS - RECONSIDERATION OF DECISIONS - PERMISSION OF DIOCESAN COUNCIL - REQUIREMENT - VIOLATION - REMEDY OF APPEAL - SUBSEQUENT EVENTS - RELEVANCE - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents were appointed as Heads of Undergraduate Departments of Commerce and Chemistry in a college. The governing body of the college, in accordance with a government order and university regulations, abolished the posts of Heads of Undergraduate Departments and appointed senior professors in their place. The respondents filed suits for a declaration that they have the status of Heads of Undergraduate Departments and for an injunction restraining the defendants from enforcing the new decision of the governing body. The District Munsif dismissed the applications for injunction, holding that the suits were not maintainable under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The District Judge allowed the appeals filed by the respondents and granted the injunction.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the suits were not maintainable under Section 9 of the CPC as the respondents had not established a prima facie right to the relief prayed for. The court also held that a contract of personal service cannot be specifically enforced in a court of law and that the respondents had not shown how the balance of convenience lay in their favor. The court further held that the governing body of the college was entitled to abolish the posts of Heads of Undergraduate Departments and appoint senior professors in their place in accordance with the government order and university regulations.
Issues: 1. Whether the suits filed by the respondents were maintainable under Section 9 of the CPC? 2. Whether a contract of personal service can be specifically enforced in a court of law? 3. Whether the balance of convenience lay in favor of the respondents? 4. Whether the governing body of the college was entitled to abolish the posts of Heads of Undergraduate Departments and appoint senior professors in their place?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A suit is maintainable under Section 9 of the CPC only if the plaintiff has a legal right which is capable of being enforced in a court of law. 2. A contract of personal service cannot be specifically enforced in a court of law, except in certain well-recognized exceptions. 3. The balance of convenience is a factor that is considered by the court in deciding whether to grant an injunction. In this case, the balance of convenience did not lie in favor of the respondents as they had not shown how they would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction was not granted. 4. The governing body of the college was entitled to abolish the posts of Heads of Undergraduate Departments and appoint senior professors in their place in accordance with the government order and university regulations.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the revisions filed by the petitioners and set aside the orders passed by the District Judge. The orders passed by the District Munsif dismissing the injunction applications were restored.
1. These revisions arise out of the common judgment passed by the District Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, in C.M.A. Nos. 9 and 10 of 1987.
2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of these revisions are briefly as follows:—The Respondents in both the revisions were appointed as Heads of Undergraduate Departments of Commerce and Chemistry respectively of the Scott Christian College, Nagercoil, by resolutions dated 20th August, 1981, and 14th August, 1983 and both the appointments were approved by the Executive Committee on 10th December, 1983. The first petitioner is the Correspondent of the said College, while the second petitioner is the Principal. According to the Respondents, who are the plaintiffs, as per the Constitution of the Kanyakumari Diocese, the goveruing body cannot alter any decision of the Executive Committee and that the Diocesan Council should have approved of the re-consideration of the already decided matters by 2/3rd majority. But contrary to the above provision of the constitution of the Kanyakumari Diocese, the governing body decided to cancel the appointment of the Respondents as Heads of the Undergraduate Departments and appointed other persons in their places on 30th January, 1986. Challenging the said action, the respondents filed the suits for a declaration that they have the status of the Heads of Undergraduates Departments of Commerce and Chemistry and for an injunction restraining the defendants, who are the revision petitioners herein from enforcing the new decision of the Governing body taken on 30th January, 1986. They also moved for grant of interim injunction in respect of the said reliefs.
3. The revision-petitioners opposed the applications I. A. No. 124 of 1986 in O. S. No. 72 of 1986 and I. A. No. 310 of 1986 in O.S. No. 305 of 1986 on the ground that since the post of post-graduate Professor is abolished and the seniormost professor has to be appointed as Head of the Department in view of the order passed by the Government, the resolution of the governing body is perfectly valid. The District Munsif dismissed the applications holding that the cancellation of the status of the respondents as Heads of Departments was in accordance with the policy of the Government, that it is only for the administrative reason the respondents were appointed as Heads of Undergraduates Departments and that they are not entitled to the injunction in view of the fact that the suit itself is not maintainable under S. 9, C.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents herein preferred appeals in C.M.A. Nos. 9 and 10 of 1987 before the District Judge and they were allowed. Hence, the aggrieved revision Petitioners have preferred these two revisions.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the revision-petitioners Mr. R. Gandhi, submitted that if the respondents are aggrieved by the action of the governing body under the constitution, an appeal is provided to the Executive Committee and the decision of the Executive Committee is final and instead of resorting to the same, they have come forward with the suits. Further, the Correspondent and the Principal of the College and the Governing body abolished the said posts and appointed the Senior Professors in that place, only in accordance with the Government policy and as per order passed by the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education under Ex. B5. It is further stated by the learned counsel that on the date when the suits were filed by the respondents, they were not functioning as Heads of Undergraduate Departments, of Commerce and Chemistry, since the abolition took place with immediate effect long prior to the filing of the suits. The learned counsel also vehemently argued that while allowing the Respondents to continue as Undergraduate Professors, the Management has not assigned any specific functions to the Respondents and without any financial commitments on their part and as such, the respondents have no existing civil rights which are enforcible in
