DIRECTOR INDIAN SCHOOL OF MINES Vs. SRIPAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two plaintiffs opposite party in this Civil Revision application have obtained an order of mandatory injunction against the defendant petitioners in a title suit filed by them. The order has been upheld by the Lower Appellate Court. They have, therefore, come up in revision.

(2.) The case of the plaintiffs in the suit filed by them is that there has been a lot of illegality and arbitrariness in admitting opposite party Nos. 3 to 6 in the Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad, and the plaintiffs who were fit to be admitted have not been admitted. During the pendency of the suit they claimed for an ad interim order of mandatory injunction against the school authorities to admit the plaintiffs. The learned Munsif granted the injunction, finding out a prima facie case for the plaintiffs. The learned District Judge has upheld it.

(3.) This civil revision application, in my opinion, has to succeed on a short ground. According to the memorandum of information which has laid down conditions for admission to the Indian School of Mines, candidates had to fulfil certain conditions. It does not seem to be in dispute that the plaintiffs had fulfilled conditions 2 and 4 of the memorandum of information. Condition 6, however, laid down-- "The last date for receipt of completed application is 31st August, 1973. The candidates may be required to appear at Viva voce test at Dhanbad at their own expense." The plaintiffs along with many others were required to appear at the viva voce test. They did appear. According to the case of the school authorities, they were not found fit at the interview test for being admitted in the Indian School of Mines. In such a situation, I am of the opinion that the Civil Court hardly got any jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the school authorities in refusing to admit the plaintiffs. Their order right or wrong -- could not be said to be without jurisdiction or a nullity so as to clothe the Civil Court with jurisdiction to try a suit of the kind which has been instituted by the plaintiffs. Even assuming that some irregularity or illegality was committed in admitting some of the opposite party, as the case of the plaintiffs seems to be that did not give a right to the plaintiffs to say under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 that the school authorities were committing a breach of their legal obligation and to prevent such breach a mandatory injunction was necessary. If at the interview, in the opinion of the school authorities, the plaintiffs were not found fit or suitable for admission to the school then the decision was not open to challenge in a Civil Court and the plaintiffs could not ask for a mandatory injunction during the pendency of the suit. In my opinion, the ad interim order of mandatory injunction is without jurisdiction.