RAJ KUMAR SHARMA Vs. HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJ Kumar Sharma has filed this suit seeking declaration to the effect that he is entitled to be promoted to Sub Divisional Officer from the date his juniors were promoted i.e. 17.02.1982, May 1985 and 20.08.1987.

(2.) THE facts noticed in brief are that the appellant had joined the Haryana State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to 'Board') as Junior Engineer Field on 09.01.1970. THE appellant would claim that his work and conduct was good throughout and he was promoted to the rank of Junior Engineer which he joined on 30.03.1979. He was also allowed to cross the efficiency bar on 01.01.1976 vide order dated 01.11.1985. As per the appellant, he was never communicated any adverse remarks throughout his service but still he was not promoted when some persons were so promoted to the post of Sub Divisional Officer on 20.02.1987. He accordingly had challenged this order being illegal to the extent that his name was not considered alongwith his juniors. THE defendant appeared and contested the suit saying that his work and conduct was not satisfactory. His integrity was also doubted. As per the respondent, in the report for the period from 21.02.1982 to 31.12.1982, the appellant was conveyed some adverse remarks on 26.09.1983. It is stated that his case was considered for promotion in 1982 and 1987 alongwith his juniors but he was not found suitable for promotion. THE trial Court framed the following issues:

(3.) THE First Appellate Court also upheld the view of the trial Court to say that the court at Karnal would not have any jurisdiction. Against this, the appellant has filed this Regular Second Appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant made an attempt to say that the issue having been decided on merit in favour of the appellant, the courts were not justified in non-suiting the appellant only on the ground of jurisdiction. THE counsel further submits that even if the Court at Karnal was lacking in jurisdiction, then the course which could be adopted was to return the plaint to the appellant to present before the Court of competent jurisdiction. In this regard, the counsel would refer to order 7 Rule 10, which regulates the return of plaint. This Rule make s a provision that subject to provision of Rule 10A, the court shall at any stage of suit return the plaint to be presented in the court in which the suit ought to have been instituted. By way of explanation, the doubts have also been removed and it is specifically provided that the court of appeal or revision may direct, after setting aside the decree passed in suit, the return of the plaint under sub rule.