CHHATHI RAJ Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal, at the hands of unsuccessful plaintiff is directed against the judgement of reversal, whereby the learned District Judge allowed the first appeal of the defendants and set aside the judgement passed by the learned trial court, decreeing the suit for declaration and mandatory injunction. Briefly put, facts of the case, as noticed by the learned first appellate court in paras 2 and 3 of the impugned judgement, are that in the year 2003-04, the plaintiff was posted at Govt. High School Phoolkan, Distt. Sirsa and defendant no.4 recorded the adverse remarks in the ACR for the year 2003-04 which was communicated to the plaintiff vide letter dated 13.8.2004. The plaintiff filed an appeal against the said adverse remarks before defendants no.3, who vide order dated 11.8.2005 rejected the appeal of the plaintiff. It was further alleged that both the orders dated 13.8.2004 and 11.8.2005 were wrong, illegal and against the principles of natural justice and against the service rules and thus the same were liable to be set aside on the following grounds :-

(2.) The plaintiff approached and requested the defendants to admit his claim and to expunge the adverse remarks recorded in the ACR for the year 2003-04 and also to withdraw the orders dated 13.8.2004 and 11.8.2004 passed by defendants no.3 and 4 and also got issue a legal notice to this effect but of no avail which has necessitated the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction.

(3.) In response to the notice of the suit the defendants filed written statement taking several preliminary objections wherein it has been contended that the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from the court because in the year 2003-04 Board results of Class VIII students elected for Sanskrit and took board examination and only six students passed and in this way the pass percentage of the school regarding Sanskrit subject of 8th class was 46.15% whereas according to the total result declared by the Board, the pass percentage was 77.22% in Sanskrit subject and thus the result of Sanskrit subject was -31.07%. It was contended that in none of the subjects which the examinees of Class 8th took, the result was more than -25% and as per the Govt. instructions/orders issued by the Director, Secondary Education, Haryana, in the ACR of such teachers whose results were in minus, grading should be made keeping in view their results and that is why the plaintiff was overall graded as average and he was communicated the Board results of 8th class and as such the ACR of the plaintiff for the year 2003-04 was recorded on the basis of his class results and the plaintiff deliberately concealed these facts from the court.