JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral)

Plaintiff has filed the present appeal under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918. Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment dated 06.08.1993 vide which the 1st Appellate Court had set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 22.09.1990 and had allowed the appeal filed by the respondents No.1 and 2/defendants No.1 and 2 and had dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

2. Learned senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that the trial Court had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff, inasmuch as, in the eligibility terms and conditions, as detailed in Ex.P3, it was clearly mentioned that the women were eligible for being appointed as Casual Khallasi/Peon on the scale pay of Rs.35/- per day (on daily rated basis). It is further submitted that it had been rightly noticed by the trial Court that the Employment Exchange had recommended the names of 49 candidates to be selected, which included the plaintiff also and after the interview, only 43 candidates were selected and the plaintiff was rejected on the ground that she is a lady. It is submitted that the said ground of rejection was illegal and did not hold good and thus, the learned trial Court had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff by directing the defendants to absorb the plaintiff on any post of casual employee/administrative post/peon other than the post of labourer. In support of his arguments, learned senior counsel for the appellant has relied upon the Division Bench judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court titled as 'Kr. Brij Bala Vs. State of H.P. and others ', reported as 1984(2) SLR 408 to submit that the plaintiff/present appellant cannot be discriminated solely on the ground of being a lady. It is submitted that the 1st Appellate Court had illegally reversed the judgment of the trial Court and the judgment of the 1st Appellate Court deserves to be set aside and the judgment of the trial Court deserves to be upheld.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2

3. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2, on the other hand, has submitted that the 1st Appellate Court had rightly come to the conclusion that the present appellant was not selected and thus, had no right to seek appointment and that the judgment of the trial Court was illegal as the direction to the respondents No.1 and 2 for the absorption of the plaintiff was for a post of other than a labourer, for which the plaintiff was never interviewed. It is submitted that the trial Court had relied upon Exhibit P-3, which is a document produced by the plaintiff and a perusal of the said document would show that the said document specifically mentioned 'only for land loosers'. It is submitted that it is not even remotely the case of the plaintiff in the plaint that she was a land looser and that further a perusal of Exhibit P-5 would show that there were two separate categories, one being 'unemployed persons of Village Gudha' and the other being 'land loosers of Village Gudha'. It is submitted that the name of the present appellant is not in the list of land loosers and once the appellant is not a land looser nor it is her case that she was a land looser, thus, reliance on Exhibit P-3 in order to state that she was eligible as per the conditions mentioned in Ex.P3, is completely misconceived. It is submitted that the reliance placed upon by the trial Court on the said Exhibit P-3 to allow the suit filed by the plaintiff, is erroneous and deserves to be set aside on the said ground alone.

4. It is further argued that even the evidence of DW-1 has been misconstrued and misapplied and the trial Court had made observations with respect to certain alleged admissions made by the said DW1 which were never made by the said DW-1. It is stated that there is no legal right vested in favour of the plaintiff to be appointed. It is further submitted that there were no sanctioned posts which were being fill