UNION OF INDIA Vs. KELSAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against an order dated 25-10-1977 by which a review application moved by the respondent has been allowed by the court below.

(2.) It appears that suit or the plaintiff-respondent was decreed by the trial court but on appeal by the Union of India the same was allowed on 10-1-1977. Subsequently, an application for review of the judgment was moved by the plaintiff-respondent which was allowed on 25-11-1977 by the order impugned herein. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that after this order had been passed the Union of India made an application before the lower appellate court for recalling its order dated 25-10-1977, on the ground that it had no notice of the review application. This application was, however, dismissed by the court some time in 1979. The Union of India did not file any appeal against that order nor it has sought any other remedy to have that order set aside or quashed. In these circumstances, reference to the order at the time of hearing of this appeal is meaningless. The appeal was filed with a delay of nearly 209 days. Since the delay has been condoned the appeal was heard on merits. It may be recalled that after the appeal of Union of India had been allowed the plaintiff-respondent had filed second Appeal No. 719 of 1977 in this Court. When the respondents' review application was allowed his appeal was also got dismissed as withdrawn. Subsequently when the present appeal was filed by the Union of India a prayer was made on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent that the record of second Appeal No. 719 of 1977 should also be connected with this appeal and in case the appeal of Union of India is allowed, then his second Appeal should be heard on merits. It is in the light of this that record of second Appeal No. 719 of 1977 has also been summoned.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, find that there is no merit in this appeal. The appeal of the Union of India was allowed by the lower appellate court on 10-1-1977 on the basis that he had not been appointed afresh to the post of Field publicity officer and that he had not been selected to that post at all. It was, therefore, held that his appointment a Field Publicity Officer was merely on ad hoc basis and he could be reverted to his original post of Field Publicity Assistant. When the review application was moved it was pointed out that the material already on the record has not been considered by the court at all and the decision had been given on the basis of some misapprehension of facts. While passing the order for review the lower appellate court observed that there was a regular advertisement for the temporary post of Field publicity Officer and thereafter through selection the plaintiff was appointed to that post. The appointment letter Ex. 2 also shows that plaintiff had been given appointment as Field publicity officer which was against a temporary post created under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. The court also held that the reference to the Central Information Service was with regard to another cadre of Field publicity officer (Central Information Service) and not to Field publicity officer (Border) under the Directorate of Field publicity, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.