D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) Original Suit No. 691 of 1976 was filed before the learned Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, 7th Court, Deorla. by the plaintiff Shesh Nath Tripathi for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled to receive all the benefits as lecturer in accordance with statutes of the Gorakhpur University. In the alternative, he had prayed that the defendants be restrained from interfering with the working and not to create any obstruction in receiving all benefits and amenities admissible to him.
(2.) In the plaint, it was pleaded by the plaintiff that the plaintiff was duly appointed as lecturer of Swami Daya Nand Degree College pursuant to an advertisement in July, 1971, after having been selected by the selection committee who had placed the plaintiff at serial No. 2. The plaintiff represented against the placing of the defendant No. 3 at serial No. 1. He had also represented to the Vice-Chancellor of the University against the principal resulting Into an ill-feeling towards the plaintiff. It was aggravated by reason of filing of Writ Petition No. 164 of 1973 before this Court by the plaintiff against the principal and the management which had since been compromised outside Court on the terms that the plaintiff would be permitted to function as lecturer and receive salary, resulting into dismissal of the writ petition as not pressed on 20th January. 1975. After which plaintiff was allowed to take classes since October, 1975, but the amenities attached to the post was denied to him. despite several representations. Hence the suit.
(3.) In the written statement, it was contended that the plaintiff was called for interview in June 1971 but he was unsuccessful. One Sri Bachcha Prasad Pandey and Sri Anand Kumar Shukla were selected In accordance with merit. Sri Bachcha Prasad Joined on 27.8.1971 and had resigned on 3.9.1971, whereafter Sri Anand Kumar Shukla was appointed who subsequently became permanent. The plaintiff was never recommended by the selection committee nor he was ever appointed as lecturer neither he was teaching In the college since October 1971. The plaintiff suppressed the fact that he had applied for appointment In the college in the year 1975 and 1976 as well. According to the defendants, if the plaintiff had been appointed in that event, there would have been no occasion for him to apply for appointment in 1975-76. It was also contended that since the plaintiff had filed the suit without exhausting the departmental remedy provided in the State Universities Act, the suit is not maintainable. It is further denied that any assurance was given to the plaintiff before withdrawal of the writ petition. It was also pointed out that the Committee of Management not being a statutory authority a suit was not maintainable. The suit is barred under Sections 14, 34 and 41 of the Specific Relief Act as well as by limitations. The suit is bad for non-joinder or misjoinder of parties.;