R.L. Anand, J. - (1.) BY this judgment I dispose of two regular second appeals - No. 4210 of 2000 (Ajit Singh and ors. v. Des Raj & ors.) and No. 4673 of 2000 (Municipal Committee, Sultanpur Lodhi & ors. v. Des Raj & ors.), as both the appeals have arisen from the judgment and decree dated 4.9.2000 passed by District Judge, Kapurthala, who affirmed the judgment and decree dated 29.3.1994 passed by Addl. Senior Sub Judge, Sultanpur Lodhi.
(2.) SOME facts can be noticed in the following manner: - Des Raj plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction by alleging that he had been working as Peon in Municipal Committee , Sultanpur Lodhi for the last about 22 years and he belongs to schedule caste community. He was well conversant with the work of the octroi and had got sufficient experience. Mr. Ram Lubhaya, Octroi Clerk of the Municipal Committee had expired and his post was lying vacant. He requested to the Municipal Committee to promote him against the said post and in view of his request he was designated as Clerk vide resolution No. 94 dated 12.2.1992. Since then he was working as such. He alleged that he fulfilled his educational qualification in the year 1990. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant No. 3 Ajit Singh and defendant No. 4 Kamal Kumar had been working as Peon for the last about six years in the Municipal Committee, Sultanpur Lodhi and they were junior to him. But the Municipal Committee got their applications and passed resolutions No. 99 and 100 dated 20.3.1999 which are illegal. Vide said resolutions Ajit Singh and Kamal Kumar were ordered to be posted as Clerks. Notice of the suit was given to the respondents. The Municipal Committee filed written statement and alleged that the suit is not maintainable in the present form; that the plaintiff has no cause of action; that notice under Section 49 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 has not been served upon it before filing the present suit and that notice under Section 80 CPC has also not been served upon the Committee. On merits, the stand of the Committee is that the resolution passed in favour of the plaintiff was not sanctioned by the Deputy Director, Local Government, Jalandhary and thereafter the Committee had to pass separate resolutions which were duly sanctioned by the Deputy Director, Local Govt., Jalandhar. The promotions were given to the contesting defendants according to law.
(3.) DEFENDANTS No. 3 and 4 filed a separate written statement and their stand was common with that of the Municipal Committee.;