Regular Second Appeal No. 3364 of 2010 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Regular Second Appeal No. 3364 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision:September 21, 2010 Suresh Kumar ---Appellant versus Bhartia Prasaran Nigam ---Respondent Coram: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr.R.M.Singh, Advocate, for the appellant *** GURDEV SINGH, J. C.M.No. 9882-C of 2010 Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, supported by an affidavit, which amounts to sufficient cause, delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.No. 9881-C of 2010 Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, supported by an affidavit, which amounts to sufficient cause, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.No. 9883-C of 2010 RSA No. 3364 of 2010 The unsuccessful plaintiff-Suresh Kumar, has preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2009 passed by Regular Second Appeal No. 3364 of 2010 -2- Additional District Judge(Fast Track Court), Hissar, vide which he dismissed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 31.8.2007 passed by Civil Judge(Senior Division), Hissar, vide which he dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for issuance of mandatory injunction directing the defendants-respondents to call him for interview, scheduled to be started w.e.f. 14.3.2001 and that interview be conducted by the duly constituted Selection Committee for the purpose of recruiting six Technicians and also for restraining the defendants from declaring the result of successful candidates for the said posts till he is finally considered by the Selection Committee. The case of the plaintiff as pleaded in the plaint is that he is an unemployed youth belonging to Schedule Caste Category and is registered with Employment Exchange, Hisar since 1993 against Card No. 2266/93. The defendants sent requisition for recruitment of six posts of Technicians to the said Employment Exchange and also invited applications by making advertisement in the national newspapers. He was fulfilling all the qualifications for that post of Technician as well as the experience. He received Roll No. 3089 on 15.2.2001 for appearing in the written examination, to be held on 28.2.2001 at 11.30 a.m. He appeared in the written examination. At that time he was having last roll number in the examination centre and there was no candidate with Roll No. 3089-A. 41 candidates were declared as having qualified on the basis of the written examination and the candidate having Roll No. 3089-A was one amongst them. He immediately approached the defendants and asked for interview card on the plea that the candidate having the said Roll number had already received the interview letter. He made a strong protest to the defendant and Regular Second Appeal No. 3364 of 2010 -3- requested it to make open the name of the candidate having Roll No. 3089- A and to show the answer sheet of that candidate, but without any result. The formality of conducting the interview on 14.3.2001 seems to be mockery of recruitment and mere eye wash. The suit was contested by the defendants. It has been averred in the written statement that 570 candidates applied for six posts of Technicians and out of them 377 candidates appeared in the written examination, including the candidate having Roll No. 3089-A. In fact, that candidate was sitting just behind the plaintiff at the time of written examination and his application was entered in the Diary Register dated 20.12.2000. at Sr. No. 387. The plaintiff did not secure sufficient marks in the written examination and as such was not called for interview. He secured only 21.5 marks out of 50 whereas the candidate having Roll No. 3089-A secured 24.5 marks. The apprehension of the plaintiff that there was no such candidate with Roll No. 3089-A, is wrong. The suit itself is not maintainable and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the same. The same is also bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed by the trial court:- 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPD 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 3. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of the necessary parties?OPD 4. Relief. Regular Second Appeal No. 3364 of 2010 -4- To succeed in the suit, plaintiff examined himself as PW-1. On the other hand, the defendants examined Ved Parkash Prashar, LDC as DW-1 and also proved on record the documents Ex. D-1 to D-12. After going through the evidence so produced on the record and hearing counsel for both the sides, learned Trial Court decided Issue No. 1 against the plaintiff and other issues in his favour and resultantly dismissed the suit. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff against that judgment was dismissed, as aforesaid. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff. It has been submitted by counsel for the plaintiff-appellant that there is misreading of evidence by the Trial Court as well as by the First Appellate Court. It was stated by Ved Parkash Prashar, LDC, DW-1 that the form was submitted by the candidate, to whom Roll No. 3089-A was allotted, after the expiry of the last date and the lower courts have not taken the cognizance of that fact and that amounts to recording of the finding in favour of the plaintiff on the misreading of the evidence. Statement of the said witness was read by the counsel for the plaintiff in the Court. I do not find any such misreading of the evidence or misreading of the statement of this witness by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. Concurrent findings have been recorded by the courts below on the basis of the evidence so produced by the parties. No substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE September 21, 2010 PARAMJIT