Eligibility for appointment requires adherence to procedural guidelines and qualifications as mandated by law.

DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA , J .

1. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 06.08.2001 passed by the learned lower Appellate Court whereby, the judgment and decree dated 30.11.1999 passed by the learned trial Court was set aside and the suit of the appellant-plaintiff was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-plaintiff was appointed on part time basis on the post of Sweeper at Shri Kishori Lal High School, Narnaul (hereinafter referred to as 'school'), on an unaided post in the year 1986. One vacancy of Peon arose on account of retirement of an employee namely, Pehlad, on 30.06.1997 who was working on aided post. The respondents-defendants started the process of filling up of above said vacancy of Peon through the Employment Exchange.

3. Aggrieved against the above said action of the respondents- defendants in not considering the case of appellant-plaintiff on the above said post of Peon, the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the appellant-plaintiff was entitled to be considered on the post of Peon on regular basis which fell vacant on account of the retirement of the employee, as she had been working for the last 11 years on part time basis. In the above said suit, the appellant-plaintiff also sought an injunction restraining the respondents-defendants from appointing any person on the above said post by ignoring the claim of the appellant-plaintiff.

4. The respondents-defendants duly filed written statement in the above said suit. It was the case of the respondents-defendants that the vacancy of Peon which arose on account of retirement of one Pehlad on 30.06.1997 and the same was to be filled in accordance with the Instructions of the Haryana Government through Employment Exchange. It was also the case of the respondents-defendants that the above said post was notified and a list of ten persons was recommended by the Employment Exchange. An interview was held by the Committee. However, due to the interim injunction granted by the learned trial Court, the result was not declared. It was also the case of respondents-defendants that the appellant-plaintiff did not possess the requisite qualifications as notified by the Employment Exchange, as such, the case of appellant-plaintiff could not be considered for adjustment/appointment on the post of Peon. It was also the case of respondents-defendants that the name of appellant-plaintiff was never registered with the Employment Exchange as such, on this ground also, the case of the appellant-plaintiff could not be considered for regular adjustment/appointment on the post in question.

5. From the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the plaintiff has become owner to be absorbed as regular employee on class IV post which fell vacant on 30.6.97? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff suit is not maintainable?OPD.

3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD

4. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed under specific Relief Act?OPD.

5. Whether the defendants are entitled to special costs?OPD.

6.Relief. ”

6. The learned trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.1999, decreed the suit in favour of the appellant-plaintiff. The respondents-defendants were directed to regularize the appellant-plaintiff on the post of Peon by dispensing with the interview held by the respondents- defendants in respect to the persons recommended by Employment Exchange.

7. A perusal of the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court would further show that the learne