S.B.CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.191/2007 Management Committee vs. Smt. Manju Bhatnagar & Ors. Order dt: 16/9/2008 1/4 S.B.CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.191/2007 (Management Committee vs. Smt. Manju Bhatnagar & Ors.) DATE OF ORDER : 16/9/2008 HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.Sandeep Saruparia, for the petitioner. Mr.Rakesh Arora, ] Mr.B.L.Bhati, ] for the respondents. 1. Heard learned counsels. 2. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 14/5/2007, whereby, the Executing Court while executing the decree of Rajasthan Non-Governmental Education Institution Tribunal, Jaipur dated 5/8/2002 allowed the application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC by the impugned order dated 14/5/2007 and directed the petitioner institution to appoint two decree holders namely Smt.Manju Bhatnagar and Kirti Lal Suthar on the post of LDC and Teacher respectively otherwise to undergo civil imprisonment and attachment of their property under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioner Institution has approached this Court by way of present revision petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Institution submitted that learned Executing Court has gone beyond the decree of the Tribunal S.B.CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.191/2007 Management Committee vs. Smt. Manju Bhatnagar & Ors. Order dt: 16/9/2008 2/4 dated 5/8/2002 and it is only stated in the operative part of order dt:5/8/2002 that these two petitioners-decree holders may be adjusted against the vacant and equivalent posts looking to their educational qualifications in pursuance of the order dated 31/5/99 of the State Government, however, the learned Executing Court has directed the petitioner Institution to adjust these two persons on a higher post of LDC and Teacher which are not equivalent posts according to their qualifications. He further submitted that vide Annex.P/5 and P/6 these two persons were offered appointment on Class IV posts of the petitioner Institution in the pay scale of Rs.2550-3200 but the same has not been accepted by the respondents-decree holders. He further submitted that the State Government vide order dated 28/7/2003 (Annex.P/8) filed along with additional affidavit has refused the grant-in-aid on the appointments made after 2001-2002 and, therefore, in view of said non-availability of grant-in-aid, the petitioner Institution cannot offer any appointment on the post of LDC/Teacher to the respondents. 5. These submissions are opposed by Mr.Rakesh Arora, learned counsel appearing for respondents-decree holders. He relies upon the judgment of this Court in case of Ramesh Prakash vs. Raj. Public S.B.CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.191/2007 Management Committee vs. Smt. Manju Bhatnagar & Ors. Order dt: 16/9/2008 3/4 Service Commission ( 2007 (5) WLC 178), wherein, this Court considering the case of promotion to the post of Head Master held that experience of Laboratory Assistant can be considered as equivalent to teaching experience of teacher and thus Laboratory Assistants, who had imparted knowledge to the students while working in Laboratory were held to be have gained teaching experience and could be considered along with teachers for promotion to the post of Head Master. He further submitted that the posts of LDC and Teacher are equivalent posts to that of Laboratory Assistants, therefore, the respondents could be adjusted against those equivalent posts. He, however, fairly agrees that the learned court could not have directed the adjustment/absorption of the respondents on a higher post than the one held by them. 6. Having heard learned counsels, this Court is of the opinion that the Executing Court has gone beyond the decree given by the Tribunal on 5/8/2002 while deciding the application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC. The learned Executing Court could not issue any fresh directions as it was not trying the suit itself. The Executing Court should not have directed the petitioner Institution to absorb and adjust the respondents against any particular posts. It was only for the S.B.CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.191/2007 Management Committee vs. Smt. Manju Bhatnagar & Ors. Order dt: 16/9/2008 4/4 Tribunal to first hold and determine that these posts were equivalent and were available for the respondents and if any such directions were issued by the Tribunal, then only the question of its execution could have arisen before the Executing Court. This Court is of the opinion that impugned order dated 14/5/2007 passed by the Executing Court is beyond its jurisdiction under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC. 7. The revision petition is allowed and impugned order dated 14/5/2007 is set aside. No costs. (DR.VINEET KOTHARI), J. item no.21 baweja/-