Back
2006 Supreme(All) 3389
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
YATINDRA SINGH, RAN VIJAI SINGH, JJ.
Pujari Yadav - Appellant
Versus
Ram Briksh Yadav - Respondent
Decided on : 09-10-2006
The main legal point established in the judgment is the enforceability of a contract of personal service in a civil suit, the necessity of prior approval of the Inspector before terminating the services of a class IV employee, and the importance of impleading necessary parties for granting relief in a civil suit.
Headnote:
contract of personal service - enforcement in civil suit - Intermediate Education Act 1921 - Section 16-G(3), Regulation 31 - The court discussed the enforceability of a contract of personal service in a civil suit, referring to the Intermediate Education Act 1921 and its provisions, particularly Section 16-G(3) and Regulation 31. The court highlighted the exceptions to the general rule that a contract of personal service cannot be specifically enforced, emphasizing the need to consider additional exceptions in certain cases. The court also examined the necessity of prior approval of the Inspector before terminating the services of a class IV employee, concluding that such approval was not required. Additionally, the court emphasized the importance of impleading necessary parties for granting relief in a civil suit.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff-appellant, a Class IV employee at a school, filed a suit against the officiating principal for illegal termination of services. The trial court decreed the suit, but the appellate court dismissed it. The plaintiff-appellant then filed a second appeal, leading to the present case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit was not maintainable in the Civil Court, and even if it were, no relief could be granted to the plaintiff-appellant due to the absence of necessary parties. The court also concluded that prior approval of the Inspector was not necessary before terminating the services of the plaintiff-appellant.
Issues: The main issues involved the maintainability of the suit in the Civil Court, the necessity of prior approval of the Inspector before terminating the plaintiff's services, and the absence of necessary parties for granting relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit was not maintainable in the Civil Court and that no relief could be granted to the plaintiff-appellant due to the absence of necessary parties. The court also determined that prior approval of the Inspector was not necessary before terminating the plaintiff's services.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Yatindra Singh and Ran Vijai Singh, JJ.
The main question involved in this appeal is when can a contract of personal service be enforced in a civil suit.
THE FACTS
2. There is a school known as Shri Shanker Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Pargana Ghosi, district Azamgarh (the School). This school imparts education up to 10th class and is recognized under Intermediate Education Act 1921 (the Act); it is also given grant-in-aid by the State Government in respect of salaries of its teachers and non-teaching staff.
3. The plaintiff-appellant was appointed as Class IV employee in the School on 1.3.1976 and was subsequently confirmed. There was misappropriation of Rs. 1400/- from the Boys' Fund. It was alleged that the plaintiff-appellant had forged the signatures of the Principal and had taken out the money. The defendant-respondent was the officiating principal of the school. He called an explanation of the plaintiff-appellant on 11.5.1977. Initially a reply was submitted on 11.5.1977. Thereafter the plaintiff-appellant admitted his guilt on 15.5.1977. Subsequently, his services were terminated on 12.6.1977.
4. The plaintiff-appellant filed the original suit No. 259 of 1977 against the officiating principle, who is sole defendant-respondent in the suit, for declaration that:
The termination order dated 12.6.1977 was illegal, null and void; and
An injunction be issued restraining the defendant-respondent from interfering/stopping the plaintiff-appellant from functioning as the Class IV employee of the School.
The defendant-respondent filed written statement denying the allegations of the suit.
5. The trial court decreed the suit on 16.5.1979. The court restrained the defendant respondent for interfering with the service of the plaintiff-appellant. The court while decreeing the suit recorded the following findings:
The Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the suit. This was held earlier on 24.8.1978.
The defendant-respondent could not be officiating Principal of the School.
The principle of natural justice were not followed in conducting the enquiry.
6. The defendant-respondent filed an appeal. This appeal was allowed on 12.11.1980 and the suit was dismissed. The appellate court recorded the following findings:
It can not be said that the defendant-respondent was not the officiating principal of the School.
There was no illegality in terminating the services of the plaintiff-appellant.
7. Aggrieved by the order of the appellate court, the plaintiff-appellant has filed the present second appeal. The Single Judge by his order dated 3.12.1999, referred the question of maintainability of the suit to the larger bench by observing that:
In this way I find that there is a serious controversy over the aforesaid question regarding maintainability or the suit in Civil Court. In my humble opinion the matter requires consideration by a larger bench and therefore, the entire record be remitted before the Bench nominated by the Hon'ble Chief Justice. Lay before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for orders.
This is how the case has come up before us.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
8. It was agreed by the parties that instead of answering the referred question, the entire appeal may be decided. We have heard Sri D.B. Yadav, counsel for the plaintiff- appellant and Sri C.K. Rai, counsel for the defendant-respondent, and Sri V.K. Singh who was appointed as friend of the Court. The following points are to be decided in the appeal:
(i) Whether the suit is maintainable in the Civil Court?
(ii) Whether the prior approval of DIOS was necessary before terminating the services of the plaintiff-appellant?
(iii) Whether on the finding recorded by the first appellate court, the plaintiff is entitled to any relief?
(iv) Whether any relief can be granted to plaintiff-appellant in absence of Committee of Management, the DIOS and the State of UP?
Point No. 1: Three Exceptions Should Be Extended.
9. The counsel for the defendant respondent submitted that the suit is not maintainable as,
The suit
