CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH IN AYURVEDA AND SIDDHA, NEW DELHI Vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR INCHARGE, INSTITUTE OF KAYA CHIKITSA, PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the defendants filed against judgment and decree of Additional District Judge, Patiala, dated March 31, 1987, whereby suit filed by Mrs. Nirmala Sharma and others for declaration that order dated June 2,1980 passed on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee Selection Committee was illegal, unconstitutional, void etc. and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from giving effect to aforesaid illegal order of promotion and from reverting the plaintiff from the post of Assistant Research Officer, Ayurveda, was decreed. The plaintiffs were reverted as Research Assistants from the post of Assistant Research Officers and persons junior to the plaintiffs were promoted as Assistant Research Officers. These orders were challenged in the suit which stands decreed.

(2.) Counsel for the defendants prayed for dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents has objected to the same and has argued. I have heard him.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents is that this court, in the exercise of powers under Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure should give further directions to the defendant-appellants to re-consider the matter of promotion of the plaintiffs as during the pendency of the appeal some decision has been taken by the defendants which is not in accordance with the rules and regulations and some junior persons continue to hold the promotional posts. In support of his contention he referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Kiran Agarwal (Smt.) Vs. State of H.P., 1988(3) S.L.R. 1. I am afraid the course suggested by the counsel for the respondents cannot be adopted in this appeal. The appellate Court can pass a decree on the facts stated in the plaint and cannot go beyond it. Since the suit already stands decreed quashing the promotion of the respondents as Assistant Research Officers and also granting injunction to the respondent to re-consider the case of promotion of Research Officers for the purposes of promotion it is left to the defendants to pass appropriate orders under the relevant rules. However, subsequently, the defendants have passed some orders which are not favourable to either the present plaintiffs or others, in this suit no such relief can be granted as is asked by the learned counsel for the respondents. This Court is exercising appellate jurisdiction and not writ jurisdiction to pass any appropriate orders; may be as is argued by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that the subsequent order deciding the matter of promotion to the post of Assistant Research Officers is not in accordance with law. It is left to the plaintiffs to challenge the same either by filing a fresh suit or in a writ petition. The request cannot be accepted even in view of the provisions of Order 41, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under this provision only such relief can be granted in appeal which the trial Court could grant in the plaint in the suit and nothing more.