9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
(I) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the decree of injunction could have been granted in favour of plaintiffs-respondents by Lower Appellate Court? (II) Whether the injunction, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was barred by Section 41 of Specific Relief Act, 1963? Summary: Issue I: Decree of Injunction by Lower Appellate Court The plaintiff-respondent, Anil Kumar Singh Yadav, was appointed on an ad hoc basis as an Assistant Teacher in Gandhi Rashtriya Inter College, Sadalpur, Varanasi, due to a vacancy created by a promotion. The appointment was made u/s 18 of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982. The documents were forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools (DIOS) for approval, but no approval was received, leading to non-payment of salary and the institution of the suit. The Trial Court found the appointment illegal as it was not made in accordance with Section 18 and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appealed, and the Lower Appellate Court (LAC) allowed the appeal, directing the defendants to allow the plaintiff to continue in service and pay his salary. The High Court found that the LAC's understanding was erroneous and illegal. The procedure prescribed under para 2 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 1981, was not followed. The appointment was made in violation of the mandatory procedure, rendering it void ab initio. The High Court cited several precedents, including Radha Raizada v. Committee of Management and Prabhat Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P., to support its conclusion that the appointment was illegal and conferred no right to the incumbent. Issue II: Bar of Injunction by Section 41 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 The High Court held that an injunction could not be granted to require the defendants to commit a breach of law, as such an injunction is barred by Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The suit for enforcement of a contract of personal service is not maintainable unless specific conditions are met, which were not present in this case. The High Court referred to the principles laid down in Executive Committee of U.P. State Warehousing Corporation v. C.K. Tyagi and other relevant cases, emphasizing that a contract of personal service cannot be specifically enforced except in certain well-recognized exceptions. Conclusion: The High Court answered question No. 1 in the negative, against the plaintiff-respondent, and question No. 2 in the affirmative, in favor of the defendants-appellants. The appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2000 passed by the Lower Appellate Court were set aside, and the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2000 passed by the Trial Court were restored and confirmed. The Original Suit No. 839 of 1996 filed by the plaintiff-respondent was dismissed, and the defendants-appellants were entitled to costs throughout.
|
