KARAVAN Vs. R VAIDYANATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition brought on behalf of Deft.3 in OS.1257 of 1974 on the file of the Court of the I Munsiff, Bangalore, arises out of an application for temporary injunction filed by the respondent-plaintiff. The matter arises in this way: Deft.1, Bangalore University, invited applications for one post of Professor of Political Science and one poet of Reader in Political Science. The plaintiff and Defts.2 & 3 were the applicants to the said posts, among others. The candidates were interviewed by the Board of Appointments and Deft 2 Dr.K.H.Cheluva Raj was appointed as Professor and Deft.3 Dr.Narayan was appointed as Reader, by a resolution of the Syndicate dt.27-6-1974. Dr Vajdyanath, the plaintiff, who was an unsuccessful candidate, instituted the suit in the Court of the I Munsiff, Bangalore, on 29-6-1974, wherein he prayed for judgment and decree as follows : "(a) Declaring that the appointment of Defts.2 & 3 is irregular, void, illegal and inoperative; (b) Restraining the 1st Deft, from appointing the Defts. or inducting them into the office or and otherwise allowing them to continue in the posts of Professor of Political Science and Reader in Political Science; (c) Restraining the Defts.2 & 3 from assuming office and continuing in the office of the Professor of Political Science and Reader in Political Science;."

(2.) The allegation in the plaint was that the University, Deft.1, had not acted in accordance with the relevant statutory rules, that Defts.2 & 3 do not possess the prescribed qualifications and that their appointments are made fraudulently. It is relevant to state at this stage that orders were issued to Defts.2 & 3 appointing them as Professor and Reader respectively, on 28-6-1974. The plaintiff made an application for an interim injunction restraining Deft.1-University-from giving effect to the appointments of Defts.2 and 3, and restraining Defts.2 & 3 from assuming charge of and performing the functions of the Professor of Political Science and Reader in Political Science respectively, during the pendency of the suit. The Munsiff issued an ad interim order of injunction on that application. After the Defts. entered appeal ance and contested the application, the interim order was dissolved so far as Defts.1 & 2 are concerned, but was made absolute with regard to Deft.3. That order was affirmed by the Court of the Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in MA.54 of 1974 by its order dt.9-8-1974. Aggrieved by the said order, Deft. 3 has preferred the above revision petition.

(3.) It is a cardinal principle governing the law of granting intenm injunctions that the Court granting such an order should come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has a prima facie case, which means a case to go for trial, and that the balance of convenience lies in maintaining the status quo. The defendants have contended, inter, alia, that the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiff cannot be granted. Their case is that the plaintiff cannot obtain a declaration to the effect that the appointments made by Deft.1 of Defts.2 and 3 are irregular, void, illegal and inoperative, and that such a relief cannot be obtained under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act. Both the Courts below have failed to consider whether, under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, a declaratory relief of the nature claimed by the plaintiff can be granted. A suit for declaration and injunction is governed by the Specific Relief Act, 1963, (hereinafter called the Act). The grant of specific relief of declaration or injunction, is a discretionary remedy. Section 34 of the Act states :