D.C. Srivastava, J. - (1.) Siya Nand Singh Tyagi, defendant No. 3 has filed this second appeal. At the time of admission of this appeal, learned counsel for the pasties appeared and requested that there is no necessity for summoning the record inasmuch as the appeal can be decided with the help of Annexures including copies of the Plaint, written statement etc., and the appeal may be finally heard and disposed of at the stage of admission. In view of this joint request the appeal was deemed to have been admitted and the learned counsel for the parties were heard at length.
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant pressed six substantial questions of law, in this appeal. The first was that the plea of jurisdiction, thought not taken in the trial court and the appellate court, can be taken in second appeal and since the civil court lacked jurisdiction hence the decree of the lower appellate court is nullity. The second point was lack of jurisdiction in civil court to entertain such suit. The third point was that the suit is barred by Sections 14 and 41 of the Specific Relief Act. The next substantial question raised was that the plaintiff is estopped from challenging the validity of the appointment of the appellant. The fifth question was that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, namely, the State of U.P. and U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission, and the last was that since the plaintiff did not possess minium qualification and was not eligible for appointment on the date of occurrence of vacancy, her suit could not be decreed by the lower appellate court.
(3.) Before appreciating these questions, in short the facts of the case have to be narrated.;