Skip to content


Kalicharan and ors. Vs. Principal Dhatri Kalpad Training Centre and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 81 of 1981
Judge
Reported in1981WLN(UC)260
AppellantKalicharan and ors.
RespondentPrincipal Dhatri Kalpad Training Centre and ors.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Cases ReferredDelhi Municipality v. Suresh Chandra
Excerpt:
.....students have already been admitted to the centre, it cannot be said that the learned district judge has exercised his jurisdiction either illegally or with material irregularity, when he set aside the order of the munsif it is not the case of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned district judge has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by law or that he has exercised jurisdiction which is not vested in him by law......mathur has appeared on behalf of non-petitioners no. 1 and 2.3. on may 11, 1961, mr. a.k. mathur, learned counsel for non-petitioners no. 1 and 2 filed an application under section 151 cpc supported by affidavit of shri purshottam sharma, in which, it was inter-alia, stated that academic session in regared to which, the petitioners alleged that they have not been considered is now over and that the college has been closed on may 10, 1981. along with the application, certain copies of letters showing that the government was moved for increasing the seats for accommodating the petitioners were filed. on july 21, 1981, mr. m.l. panwar, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that he has no objection if the documents filed with the aforesaid 'application are considered at the time of.....
Judgment:

S.K. Mal Lodha, J.

1. Plaintiff-petitioners instituted a suit for declaration to the effect that they were wrongly denied admission in the Dhatri Kalpad Training Centre, Sardarsbahar (for short 'the Centre') by non-petitioner No. 1. The petitioners filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 CPC along with the suit praying that they should be allowed to take training at the Centre provisionally. The learned Munsif, Sardarshahar, by his order dated December 23, 1980 directed that arrangements may be made for admitting the petitioners to the Centre according to merits. Aggrieved, the defendants went in appeal and the learned District Judge, Churu, by his order dated January 22,1981 accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the Munsif. The petitioners have filed this revision petition on February 16, 1981.

2. On March 3, 1981, a show cause notice was ordered to be issued to the non-petitioners. In pursuance of that, Mr. A.K. Mathur has appeared on behalf of non-petitioners No. 1 and 2.

3. On May 11, 1961, Mr. A.K. Mathur, learned Counsel for Non-petitioners NO. 1 and 2 filed an application under Section 151 CPC supported by affidavit of Shri Purshottam Sharma, in which, it was inter-alia, stated that academic session in regared to which, the petitioners alleged that they have not been considered is now over and that the College has been closed on May 10, 1981. Along with the application, certain copies of letters showing that the Government was moved for Increasing the seats for accommodating the petitioners were filed. On July 21, 1981, Mr. M.L. Panwar, learned Counsel for the petitioners stated that he has no objection if the documents filed with the aforesaid 'application are considered at the time of arguments of revision petition at the admission stage. Today, Mr. A.K. Mathur, learned Counsel for non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 has filed true copy of the reply filed by non-petitioner No. 1 to the application for grant of temporary injunction in the trial court. Mr. ML. Panwar, learned Counsel for the petitioners stated that he has no objection if this reply is also considered for disposal of the revision petition. It was stated by Mr. A. K. Mathur, learned Counsel for non-petitioners No.l and 2 that academic session for the year 1981-82 has commenced from July 8, 1981. This is not disputed by Mr. M.L. Panwar, learned Counsel for the petitioners.

4. Having heard Mr. M.L. Panwar, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A.K. Mathur, learned Counsel for non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 and after considering the submissions made by them, I have reached the conclusion that no ground for interference with the order under revision is made out.

5. In the first instance, Mr. A.K. Mathur, learned Counsel for non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 has raised following two preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability of the revision petition:

(1) that all those students, who were admitted are necessary parties; and

(2) That the State Government is also a necessary party as it has fixed a number of students to be admitted.

Mr. Mathur, learned Counsel for non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 however, contended that in the absence of those students who were admitted in the Centre and the State Government the temporary injunction as prayed for by the petitioners cannot be granted. On the other hand. Mr. M.L. Panwar, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that non-petitioners were defendants m the suit and that they were appellants in the appeal and so, keeping in view the relief, which the petitioners have asked viz. declaration to the effect that they have been wrongly denied admission in the Centre by the non-petitioners, the revision petition is properly constituted and the temporary injunction as prayed for by the petitioner can be granted.

6. The learned Additional District Judge while setting aside the order of temporary injunction granted by the Munsif observed that admission could only be given to 110 students for training at the Centre and the order of permitting the petitioners to join the Centre would mean that out of 110 students who have already been admitted, admission of 7 persons will have to be cancelled. As none of the student, who have already been admitted to the Centre have been made parties to the proceedings, without hearing them not order for admitting the petitioner to the Centre could be passed. There were 100 seats at the Centre and subsequently, they were increased to 110. Learned Counsel for the petitioners could not challange that there were only 110 seats at the Centre and that 110 students have already been admitted to the Central By admitting the petitioners to the Centre, the number of seats would increase from 110 to 117 and for which, the State could only give permission and if the number of seats are not increased, admission of 7 students who have already been admitted to the Centre will have to be cancelled.

7. In Kantilal v. State of Rajasthan S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1379 of 1979, decided on May 5, 1980 after considering Udit Narain Singh v. Board of Revenue : AIR1963SC786 , A Periekaruppan v. State of T.N. AIR 1971 SC 230, State of Kerala and Anr. v. Miss Rafia Rahim etc. : AIR1978Ker176 , Padamraj Samrendra v. State : AIR1979Pat266 , Alok Mishra v. University of Jodhpur S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1360 of 1979. decided on November 22, 1979) it was held that in the absence of. all the candidates whose names are mentioned in the impugned order, the writ petition was not maintainable, for, no effective relief prayed for by the petitioners can be granted in their absence.

8. In A Periakaruppan's case AIR 1971 SC 230, their Lordships of the Supreme Court laid down as under:

For the reasons mentioned above, we are of the opinion that the selections impugned in these petitions cannot be held to have been made validly inasmuch as the seats were distributed on unit wise basis and further that interviews were not held in accordance with the rules. But despite coming to that conclusion we are unable to set aside the selections already made. The selected candidates have not been made parties to these petitions. They have already joined the course and are undergoing training. The selection cannot be set aside without giving them ah opportunity to put forward their case.

A Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in State of Kerala's case : AIR1978Ker176 was dealing with a question relating to admission to medical colleges. In that case, the selected candidates had not been impleaded as parties. At the time of passing of the interim order, the Court directed that the selection and admission would be subject to the result of the writ petition and that the selected candidates should be expressly informed that this would be so. The Kerala High Court observed as under:

But this would not be a sufficient substitute for the obligation to make the affected candidates parties to the proceedings and to afford them specific and pointed notice of the same. The invalidation of the selection is a matter which vitally affects their (Selected candidates) interest and the same cannot be done in writ proceedings to which they are not parties.

The learned judges denied the effective relief to the writ petitioner on account of non-joinder of the selected candidates and the futility and ineffectiveness of upsetting the selections and directing fresh admissions at that stage. Similar view was taken in Padamraj Samrendra's case : AIR1979Pat266 . In the present case, the learned District Judge set aside the order of the Munsif on the ground that the students who had been admitted to the Centre or at least 7 students, who were less qualified than the petitioners and who have been admitted to the Centre should have been impleaded as parties to the proceedings and as this was not done, the temporary injunction as prayed for by the petitioners could not be granted.

9. Ground No. (E) taken in the memo of revision reads as under:

(E) That the petitioners never asked that the students who have been given admission against the law and rules should be removed from the training centre. But on the contrary petitioners only claim that they should also be given admission. In view of the fact that the State Government has fixed 110 seats for the Centre that and 110 students have already been admitted to the Centre, it cannot be said that the learned District Judge has exercised his jurisdiction either illegally or with material irregularity, when he set aside the order of the Munsif It is not the case of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the learned District Judge has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by law or that he has exercised jurisdiction which is not vested in him by law.

10. In Hindustan Aeronautics v. Ajit Prasad : (1972)ILLJ170SC their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under:

In our opinion the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the first appellate court. It is not the conclusion of the High Court that the first appellate court had no jurisdiction to make the order that it made. The order of the first appellate court may be right or wrong; may be in accordance with law or may not be in accordance with law; but one thing is clear that it had' jurisdiction to make that order. It is not the case that the first appellate court exercised its jurisdiction either illegally or with material irregularity. That being so, the High Court could not have invoked its jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.

The principles laid down in the aforesaid decision were reiterated in Delhi Municipality v. Suresh Chandra : [1977]2SCR10 .

11. No ground for interference with the order under revision is made out.

12. The revision petition is dismissed summarily.

13. Before parting with the case, it may be mentioned that non-petitioner No. 1 has filed true copies of the letters dated May 8, 1981. December 26, 1980, January 1, 1981 and January 7, 1981 addressed by him to the Secretary to the Government, Public & Health Department, Rajasthan Jaipur for increasing the number of seats from 110 to 117, so that the petitioners could provisionally be admitted. But the State Government did not send any reply to it.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //