KAMAL DEV Vs. DIRECTOR AYURVEDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree passed by learned District Judge Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2008 decided on dated 20.10.2008 titled Kamal Dev vs. The Director Ayurveda Kasumpti.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that Kamal Dev filed a suit for mandatory and permanent prohibitory injunction pleading therein that plaintiff is resident of village Baddu P.O. Chharol Tehsil Sadar District Bilaspur H.P. It is pleaded that plaintiff is unemployed youth and is matriculate and belongs to IRDP family. It is pleaded that District Ayurveda Officer Bilaspur H.P. as well as other Medical Officers promised to engage the plaintiff as Class IV employee if father of the plaintiff would donate 10 biswas of land in village Baddu P.O. Chharol Tehsil Sadar District Bilaspur for construction of dispensary. It is further pleaded that on the promise of Superior Ayurvedic Medical Officers father of the plaintiff with assurance to adjust his son Kamal Dev plaintiff donated the land measuring 0 -10 bighas comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 6/6 Khasra No. 64 situated in village Baddu Tehsil Sadar District Bilaspur H.P. on dated 20.12.1997 in favour of Ayurvedic Hospital and mutation was attested in favour of Ayurvedic Department. It is further pleaded that thereafter father of the plaintiff requested the Ayurvedic Department to appoint the plaintiff as Class IV employee as per their promise. It is also pleaded that Ayurvedic Department vide letter No. Ayur -BLP/PTS/2001 -Vol -III -2376 dated 30.7.2004 also recommended the case of plaintiff to defendant No. 1 for appointment but defendants did not appoint the plaintiff as Class IV employee. It is further pleaded that plaintiff also served a notice under Section 80 CPC through Advocate but despite notice defendant did not reply to the notice in order to engage the plaintiff as Class IV employee. It is further pleaded that plaintiff is legally entitled for decree of mandatory and prohibitory injunction. Prayer for decree of suit as mentioned in relief clause sought.

(3.) PLAINTIFF filed replication and re -asserted the allegations as pleaded in the plaint. On the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by learned trial Court on dated 4.11.2005: -