A.N.Varma - (1.) THIS is plaintiffs second appeal arising out of suit for quashing a resolution dated 3-11-1977 passed by the Committee of Management of the concerned Intermediate College promoting Sri Ram Bujharat Yadav (defendant no. 4 in the suit) to the lecturer's grade and for declaration that the same was ineffectual in law.
(2.) THE plaint case was that the post of a lecturer in Geography fell vacant in Deshraj Narang Dayanand Intermediate College, which is an institution recognised by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education under the Intermediate Education Act. THE post had to be filled by promotion in accordance with Regulation 6 of the Chapter II of the Regulations framed under Intermediate Education Act. THE plaintiff was an L. T. grade teacher in that college. He was in that grade senior to the defendant no. 4. Under the aforesaid regulations, the post had to be filled from amongst the teachers of the college working in the next lower grade, that is, the L. T. grade. In all respects the plaintiff had a better claim to promotion, but the Committee of Management illegally and malafide promoted the defendant no. 4. Hence the suit. The suit was contested by the defendants which included the Committee of Management and its Manager, Ram Bujharat Yadav as well as the college itself who filed a joint written statement. Their case was that the promotion of the defendant no. 4 was strictly in accordance with Regulation 6 (3) of the aforesaid Regulations. It was otherwise also valid and proper and allegations to the contrary were wrong and unfounded. Three issues were framed by the trial court. These are s (1) Whether the disputed resolution dated 3-11-1977 was illegal and ineffectual in law and if so its effect ? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to promotion from the L. T. grade to the lecturers' grade ? (3) To what relief is the plaintiff entitled ?
(3.) THE learned Munsif trying the suit held that the resolution dated 3-11-77 was valid and passed in accordance with the Rules and Regulations. He also answered issues nos. 2 and 3 against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. THE court below on appeal has affirmed these findings. Both the courts below have repelled the contention that the impugned resolution passed by the Committee of Management was vitiated by any bias arising from the mere presence of the defendant no. 4 ex officio as a member of that Committee in the meeting at which the resolution dated 3-11-77 was passed as admittedly he had not participated in the deliberations. Sri V. K. S. Chaudhary and Sri R. R. K. Trivedi learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant reiterated the issue of bias before me and pressed the appeal only on that point. Their contention was relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in (1986) 4 SCC 537, (1987) 4 SCC 611 and 1981 SC 136, that the presence of the defendant no. 4 in the meeting at which the impugned resolution was passed per se rendered the same completely null and void being violative of the principles of natural justice, even though the defendant no. 4 may not have participated in the deliverations thereat.;