IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.81/2022 Date of Decision: 19th June, 2025.

Dr. Rajinder Kumar Singla .....Appellant Versus The Lawrence School, Sanawar & Ors. …..Respondents.

Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr. Rakesh Chauhan, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Raman Sethi, Advocate, for resrpondents No.1 and 2.

Ms. Rita Goswami, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Komal Chaudhary, Advocate, for o respondent No.3.

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral).

The appellant, by filing this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 16.05.2019, passed by the Learned District Judge, District Solan, H.P. in Civil Appeal No.88/2014 affirming the judgment and decree dated 26.04.2014, passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), District Solan, HP, in Civil Suit No. 40/1 of 2010.

2. The parties shall be referred to as the "plaintiff" and the "defendants" in this judgment, as they stood before the trial court for the purposes of brevity. The facts material and relevant for the disposal of this second appeal, in brief are that The plaintiff filed a civil suit under Sections 34 and 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, seeking a declaration that the

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES

termination letter dated 02.01.2007, whereby his services were terminated by defendant No.1, was wrongful, illegal, arbiPtrary, null, void, and not binding upon him. He further sought reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits, including arrears of pay, along with a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant school from terminating his services except in accordance with due process of law.

3. The plaintiff's case was that he held a B.Sc (Medical) (First Division), M.Sc (Botany) (First Division), and a Ph.D. in the Faculty of Science from Punjab University, Chandigarh. He applied for the post of PGT Biology (as per CBSE Affiliation Bye- laws) in response to an advertisement dated 27.11.2003, was interviewed on 12.01.2004, and was appointed vide letter dated 16.01.2004 for an initial period of one year, extendable as per gterms and conditions. He claimed to have served with dedication but was terminated illegally on 02.01.2007 after raising concerns about academic lapses and indiscipline in the school.

4. The defendants (Nos. 1, 2, and 4) contested the suit, admitting the plaintiff’s appointment but asserting that his termination was lawful under Clause 8 of the appointment letter, which allowed termination with three months' notice or salary in lieu thereof. They alleged that the plaintiff’s teaching methods and behavior were unsatisfactory, with complaints from students, and despite warnings, he failed to improve.

Defendant No.3 was proceeded against ex-parte. P

5. The trial court framed the following issues for determination:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that his termination was arbitrary and illegal, rendering the termination letter null and void? (OPP)

2. If issue No.1 is proved in the affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled to reinstatement with all benefits and interest @ 24%

from the date of termination t ill realization? (OPP)

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable as it involves a contract for personal service, which cannot be enforced by a court of law?

(OPD)

4. Whether no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff to file the suit? (OoPD)

5. Whether the suit is not properly valued for court fee and Cjurisdiction? (OPD)

6. Relief.

6. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and relied on gdocumentary evidence (Ex. PW1/A to Ex. PW1/J). The defendants examined Dr. V.K. Sharma, Dean of Faculty, as DW1, who produced various communications (Ex. DW1/B to Ex.

DW1/P) and the appointment letter (Ex. D1).

7. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the termination was lawful, the contract had expired, and the suit was not main