SUBHASH CHANDER Vs. HARYANA STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby his suit for prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant-respondents to remove him from the post of Hindi Lecturer in the Guest Faculty of Government Senior Secondary School, Obra, Tehsil Loharu, District Bhiwani was dismissed.

(2.) As per the averments, teachers were appointed in Guest Faculty in the Government Schools of Haryana as per the orders of the Government of Haryana. In December 2005, the post of Hindi Teacher was lying vacant in Government Senior Secondary School, Obra, Tehsil Loharu, District Bhiwani. Defendant No.3 was posted as Principal of the said School at that time. Three persons, namely Subhash Chander (appellant), Suresh Kumar son of Inder Singh (defendant No.4) and Suresh Kumar son of Ram Singh had applied for the said post of Hindi Teacher. Interviews were held and on the basis of that, the appellant was appointed as Hindi Teacher on 23.12.2005 and since then he was working to the entire satisfaction of the defendants. Defendant No.3 threatened the plaintiff-appellant to remove him from service, and hence, the instant suit was filed. Thereafter, the appellant filed an amended plaint pleading that after filing of the present suit, it came to his notice that the order of removal has already been passed on 16.02.2006 and the same has been passed without giving any notice and any opportunity of hearing. It is the case of the plaintiffappellant that in his certificate of MA examination, his marks were shown as 410 out of 800 though it was an apparent error in totaling of the marks, and the said mistake was corrected by the University on 07.02.2006 and as per the correct calculation, his marks were 414 out of 800. However, defendant No.3 in an illegal manner passed an order dated 16.02.2006 cancelling appointment of the appellant, without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing, on the ground that the marks obtained by defendant No.4 and that of the appellant were same, i.e. 410 out of 800, and since preference was to be given to the person elder in age, appointment has been given to defendant No.4 on the post of Hindi Teacher as Guest Faculty. Hence, the suit.

(3.) Upon notice, defendants appeared and filed written statement raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was alleged that plaintiff-appellant was appointed as a Lecturer of Hindi in the Guest Faculty, which was a casual adjustment. His appointment was legally cancelled as another candidate i.e. defendant No.4, who was having same marks was elder in age and thus, services of the plaintiff-appellant were dispensed with by the competent authority. It was further pleaded that on the last date of submission of the application, plaintiff-appellant had submitted the mark-sheet of MA (Hindi) examination bearing marks 410/800 whereas now he has claimed that he could not produce his improved mark-sheet at the time of submission of application and thus, the said mark-sheet cannot be taken into consideration after selection. It has been further submitted that the present suit has become infructuous and the same be dismissed as such.