SURENDAR NARAIN CAPOOR Vs. RAM EKBAL PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated 24.9.97 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Bhagalpur, in Title Appeal No. 79/ 94, whereby he set aside the judgment of the trial court passed in title suit no. 95/83 and remanded the suit for passing a fresh order.

(2.) THE appellants before this Court are the Secretary, President and Principal of the K.N.H. Medical College and Hospital at Bhagalpur. It was submitted by the appellants ' lawyer that the respondent of this appeal filed the aforesaid title suit claiming reliefs that his arrears of salary be released to him and the principal of the college may also be directed to arrange classes to be taken by the plaintiff -respondent. In brief, the plaintiff had alleged in his plaint that he was appointed as a Lecturer in the aforesaid college and his salary was time to time revised and increments were added to his salary. However, the Principal, who was having an animus against him, suddenly stopped paying him increased salary and he also failed to engage the plaintiff - respondent in classes. The suit of the plaintiff -respondent was contested by the Administration of the college including the Principal on the plea that the plaintiff -respondent was temporarily appointed and when the college was upgraded to a degree level, the services of the plaintiff were no longer required. Hence, his services were terminated by the ad hoc committee constituted for the colleges. Moreover, the ad hoc committee had allowed certain increments to the plaintiff on humanitarian ground.

(3.) BEFORE me it was submitted that there was a clear bar of the suit under Section 80A of the University Act, 1982, and, hence, the trial court had rightly passed the order dismissing the suit. The appellate court erred in setting aside the order of the trial court and remanding the suit for fresh order. In this connection, Section 80A of the University Act is worth reference. It is laid down that "no law suits and proceedings shall He in Civil Courts with respect to the implementation of the provisions of this Act, Statutes, Ordinances or Regulations." The aforesaid provision has, therefore, clearly mandated that suits in civil courts shall not lie when orders are passed by the University authorities or any authorities subordinate to the University towards the implementation of the provision of this Act and Statutes etc. So, the relevant question in the suit under the appeal was as to whether the college was under the direct administration, control and management of the University and whether the ad hoc committee was constituted by the University. The next question was whether the order passed by the ad hoc committee removing the plaintiff from his post was in implementation of the provision of the Act etc. All these questions were the questions of fact, which could not be decided on a preliminary issue of law. Before me it was submitted that the original W.S. did not contain the plea regarding the bar of the suit under Section 80A of the Act, but on an amendment this plea was introduced. Be that as it may, the simple question was whether the lower court had framed issues before dismissing the suit on a preliminary issue of law. Next question was whether the questions raised by the defendant -appellants were questions of fact and law both or they were pure questions of law. It appears that the trial court did not address itself properly on this question and it passed an order in a hurry on a vague plea of the defendant - appellants that the suit was barred under Section 80A of the aforesaid Act. So, I am of the opinion that the appellate court rightly remanded the suit to the lower court for framing of issues in the light of the pleadings of the parties and then to decide whether the suit was fit to be disposed of on a pure question of law was a preliminary issue. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the appellate court was not unjustified in remanding the suit to the lower court.