MADAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant-plaintiff is challenging the order dated 13. 7. 2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, No. 1, Alwar whereby he has remanded the case back to the trial Court after setting aside the judgment and decree dated 16. 5. 2001.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that appellant is a Member of O. B. C. Community. He did his B. Sc. and B. Ed. from a recognized University. In April, 1994 the Zila Parishad, Alwar advertised vacancies for the post of Teacher Gr. III. In all, there were 480 vacancies for the said post. Since the appellant was hopeful, he applied for the same. According to the merit list prepared by the Government, the appellant had secured 83. 74% marks. However, when the merit list was published, name of one Hazari Lal was shown at Serial No. 2 and also at Serial No. 3. Thus, the same name was repeated twice. After the publication of the said list, the candidates were called for interview. Although, the appellant was eligible to be called for interview, but because of repetition of the name of Shri Hazari Lal at two different places, the appellant was not called for interview. He, therefore, filed a civil suit on 24. 4. 1995 for declaration and permanent injunction along with an application for temporary injunction. He sought an interim direction that he may be allowed to appear in the interview. THE learned trial court granted the temporary injunction; the appellant was permitted to appear in the interview. Finally, on 26. 4. 1995, the respondents published the selection list. However, Serial No. 38 was shown as blank, as the appellant would have been placed at Serial No. 38. Since the appellant should have been included at S. No. 38, he requested the trial Court to issue direction for his inclusion and appointment. Vide order dated 20. 1. 1997, the learned trial Court directed the respondents to include the appellant's name at Serial No. 38 and to appoint him within a period of seven days. Consequently, on 27. 1. 1997, the appellant was appointed as Teacher Grade-III and he was posted at Panchayat Samiti, Bansur, District Alwar.

(3.) IN the case of P. Purshottam Reddy & Anr. vs. Pratap Steels Ltd. (2002) 2 SCC 686), the Apex Court had cautioned and had said, "an appellate court should be circumspect in ordering a remand when the case is not covered either by Rule 23 or Rule 23a or Rule 25 CPC. An unwarranted order of remand gives the litigation and undeserved lease of life and, therefore, must be avoided. " Even earlier, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Bechan Pandey & Ors. vs. Dulhin Janki Devi & Ors. (AIR 1976 SC 866), had held as under: To remand a suit to the trial Court would necessarily have the effect of keeping alive the strife between the parties and prolonging this long drawn litigation by another round of legal battle in the trial Court and thereafter in appeal. It is time, that the final curtain is drawn and the long meandering course of litigation between the parties is put an end to. The courts should be loath to entertain a plea, which would have the effect of condemning succeeding generation of families to spend major parts of their life in the protracted litigation.