SHEELA DEVI Vs. JOINT DIRECTOR (FEMALE) AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 28.1.93 passed by the District Judge, Dholpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No. 65/88 (37/87) whereby the trial court has dismissed the suit of the appellant-plaintiff seeking damages against the respondents-defendants.

(2.) The facts in nutshell, giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff, in response to the advertisement issued by the respondents inviting applications for the post of Teacher Gr.III (Women)had applied for the said post through the office of the Employment Exchange, Bharatpur. The appellant-plaintiff thereafter was selected for the said post and her appointment letter dated 12.12.85 was also issued, posting her at Government Primary School, Dandoly, Dholpur. However, according to the appellant she did not receive any such appointment letter. She came to know about her selection and appointment only when she went to the office of the Employment Exchange on 25th July, 1986 for submitting application for the next year. Thereafter on the inquiry made by her it was revealed that on the envelop containing the appointment letter, the surname of the appellant was wrongly mentioned, and therefore, the said letter could not be delivered to her. According to the appellant-plaintiff there being gross negligence on the part of the respondents-defendants in not communicating the appointment letter at the correct address of the appellant, she had suffered the loss as she had become overaged thereafter and she could not get any appointment. She, therefore, had filed the suit on 23rd March, 1987 seeking her appointment for the said post and in the alternative damages to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/-. It appears that the appellant-plaintiff had also submitted an application under Order XXXIII of CPC for permitting her to institute the suit as an indigent person, which permission was granted by the trial court.

(3.) The respondents-defendants had resisted the suit by filing the written statement denying the allegations and averments made in the plaint and further contending interalia that the appellant-plaintiff herself was negligent in not making enquiry about the result of the recruitment process. Of course, the respondents had admitted that the appellant was appointed for the said post of Teacher Gr.III and was posted at Dandoly, District Dholpur, however had further contended that though the appellant was aware about the said appointment, she did not want to join at the place of her posting, and therefore she herself had refused to accept the envelop containing the appointment letter. The respondents had contended that though there was mistake in mentioning the surname of the appellant as Bhaghela in place of Bansal, such mistake could not be said to be committed deliberately or intentional and, therefore, no damages as prayed for could be awarded.