- (1.) SUNIL Ambwani, J. Heard Shri S. A. Gilani, learned Counsel for the appellant. Shri Jitendra Srivastava and Shri V. B. Khare appearing for the defendant are not present.
(2.) THIS Second Appeal arises out of judgment and decree dated 26. 2. 1979 passed by the District Judge, Deoria in Civil Appeal No. 186 of 1978, by which he allowed the appeal and while setting aside the judgment of trial Court in Original Suit No. 127 of 1975 decreed the suit for deciaration that plaintiff was working as a Peon in Mani Nath Inter College, Nonapar, Tappa Bhatni, Pargana Salempur Majhauli, District Deoria and was entitled to get his salary, and for permanent injunction retraining the defendants from removing him from service. The Second Appeal was dismissed by this Court on 16th September, 2004 on the ground that in view of the provisions of Section 14 (6) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the contract of personal sence could not be enforced. This Court, in deciding the second appeal, relied upon the judgments in Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli v. Laxmi Narain, AIR 1976 SC 888; Premier Automobiles Ltd. . v. Kamlakar Shantaram Wadke and others, AIR 1975 SC 2238; Nandganj Sihori Sugar Co. Ltd. , Bareilly and anothery. Badri Nath Dixit and others, AIR 1991 SC 1523; Integrated Rural Development Agency v. Ram Pyare Pandey, JT 1995 (3) SC 119; S. w Kumar Tiwari (Dead) by LR s. v. Jagat Narain Rai and others, (2001) 10 SCC 11 and Pearlite Liners Pvt. Ltd. v. Manorama Sirsi, 2004 (1) AWC 764 (SC) and noticed the well recognised principles applicable to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in enforcing the contract of sen/ice. The Court also noticed the well known exceptions to the rule in Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli (supra) as follows: " (1) Where the public servant is said to be removed from service in contravention of provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. (2) Where a worker is sought to be reinstated being dismissed under the Industrial Law and was the statutory body acts in breach of the Statute. (3) Where a statutory body acts in breach or violation of the mandatory provisions of the Statutes. . " The Court found that the first and the second exceptions do not apply and the third exception also does not apply because there were no statutory rules governing the terms and conditions of employment. The second appeal was accordingly dismissed.
(3.) THE appellant preferred a S. L. P. (C) No. 17140/2006 which was converted into Civil Appeal No. 5736 of 2007 after the grant of leave. THE Supreme Court allowed the appeal with the following judgment: "despite notice, none appears for the resportdents. Leave granted. THE short question involved in this case is whether the High Court was right in dismissing the second appeal against the order of the First Appellate Court which had dismissed the suit of the appellant. THE appellant was the plaintiff in the said suit for permanent injunction and for declaration that he continues to be a peon in college. In the suit the appellant nad prayed for above declaration on the ground that his service was governed by the provision so the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the Rules framed there under. THE plaintiff in the suit claimed that the said Rules were statutory. In our view, the High Court had erred in not deciding the aforestated questions. , In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. Werequestthe High Court to disposeof the matter in accordance with law and particularly, while doing so, it may decide the question of law mentioned hereinabove. Appeal is, accordingly, allowed. No order as to costs. /sd/- New Delhi, S. H. Kapadia, J. Sd/- December 07, 2007. B. Sudershan Reddy, J. The records were received back and the matter was listed on 4. 2. 2008. The Court summoned the lower Court records and directed the matter to be listed for fina? hearing. After the receipt of the record, the matter was next listed on 9. 7. 2008, which was heard and the judgment was reserved.;