Civil Review No. 22 of 2004. Case: Manoranjan Prasad Sinha Vs Managing Committee of Delhi Public School Sail Township and Mahesh Bareja, Delhi Public School Township. Jharkhand High Court
| Case Number | Civil Review No. 22 of 2004 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Party-in-person and For Respondents: M/s. Delip Jerath, Adv., M.A. Khan, Adv., Rajesh Kumar, Adv. and Abhiresh Kumar, Adv. |
| Judges | Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, J. |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Rules 1, 40, 5; Constitution of India - Articles 136, 137, 14, 145, 21, 32 |
| Citation | 2013 (1) JLJR 86 |
| Judgement Date | November 06, 2012 |
| Court | Jharkhand High Court |
Judgment:
D.N. Patel, J., (At Ranchi)
-
This civil review has been preferred against the judgment dated 7th April, 2003, delivered by the learned Single Judge of this court in Second Appeal No. 21 of 2000 (R). I have heard party-in-person, who has mainly submitted that several errors have been committed by the learned Single Judge and several factually incorrect statements have been made in the judgment. It was mainly submitted by the party-in-person that he was appointed in Delhi Public School not on adhoc or temporary basis, but he was on probation. Further, he was appointed on the post of Grade III Teacher and not on Grade IV Teacher. His appointment was not at all temporary and appointment letter have not been issued by the authority with clean hands and that he is fully qualified for being appointed as a teacher in Grade II. It has also been mentioned in the impugned order that party-in-person, not being a B.Ed. degree holder, is not entitled for appointment on the post in question, but according to the party-in-person, B.Ed. degree was not a pre-requisite qualification for appointment on the post in question at the relevant time. He is also relying upon the following decisions.
(i) Umesh Kumar Sharma-Vs.-State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand & Ors. Reported in 2012 (1) J.C.R. Page 355
(ii) Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. And another-Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly and another & Central Inland Water Transport Coporation Ltd. and another-Vs.-Tarun Kanti Sengupta and another, reported in AIR 1986 SC 1571.
-
Party-in-person has also relied upon the deposition of D.W. 1 before the trial court and he has submitted that there are gross errors committed by the learned Single Judge in not appreciating the aforesaid document while allowing the second appeal preferred by the respondents-Management. The present applicant filed a title suit, i.e. Title Suit No. 76 of 1993 before the court of Munsif at Ranchi, which was dismissed on 24th July, 1997. Thereafter, he preferred Title Appeal, being Title Appeal No. 63 of 1997, before the 8th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, which was partly allowed vide order dated 19th February, 2000, against which a second appeal, being Second Appeal No. 21/2000 R was preferred by the respondent management, which was allowed vide judgment dated 7th April, 2003 and against this judgment present review application has been preferred.
-
Party-in-person has also read out several paragraphs of the judgment and pointed out that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact that he was selected by the Managing Committee and thereafter, his appointment was approved by the Chairman and he was on probation for one year. According to him, as this aspect of the matter was not properly appreciated, therefore, the impugned judgment of this Court passed in Second Appeal No. 21 of 2000 (R) should be quashed and this review application may be allowed.
-
We have heard the learned counsel for the respondents, i.e. appellants in Second Appeal no. 21 of 2000 (R) It is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that this review application is not tenable at law. The present applicant was never appointed by the Chairman. The Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, upon which heavy reliance has been placed by the party-in-person, was never referred to before any of the court below. Counsel for the respondents has also pointed out from Ext. 1, 2 and 3 before the trial court that present applicant was appointed on purely temporary basis for a temporary period on the post of Grade IV Teacher in Chemistry and the management had already given public advertisement later on in the month of February, 1993 for regular appointment of Grade III and Grade IV Teachers in Chemistry. Apart from that there was requirement of B.Ed. degree for appointment on the aforesaid post, which the petitioner did not have and thus, the appointment of the petitioner was only on adhoc basis for a temporary period. Even as per the appointment letter issued to the present applicant, it is apparent that he was initially appointed for six months. Thereafter, his appointment was further extended for three months. The appointment letter and extension letter are Ext. No. 1 and 2 respectively and thereafter, as his period was over after three months, he was given a letter dated 31st May, 1993 (Ext. 3) for bringing out to his notice that his contractual period was over and this was under challenge in the aforesaid title Suit. Thus, it is submitted by the counsel for the management that the present applicant was never appointed on regular basis at all. The advertisement for regular appointment was given later on in the month of February, 1993 and therefore, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge of this court while allowing...
To continue reading
Request your trial