- (1.) Present regular second appeal has been filed by the appellants-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 24.04.1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, as well as, against the judgment and decree dated 30.01.1995 passed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Kurukshetra, whereby suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from implementing order dated 30.05.1986, order dated 19.02.1987, order dated 20.02.1990 and order dated 26/27.02.1990 (Annexures P/3, P/4, P/5 and P/6 attached with the plaint) with regard to fixation of seniority of the appellant-plaintiff and private defendant Nos. 3 and 4. The case set up by the appellant-plaintiff is that he joined as Inspector in the Co-operative Department as promotee in the month of July, 1968. He passed the departmental examination and co-operative training class in the month of January, 1972. The service conditions of the plaintiff and the private defendants are governed by the Punjab Co-operative Subordinate Services Rules, 1936 (Part II Executive) and under Rules 6(i) and (ii) of Seniority of Inspector Co-operative Societies to be determined from the date of passing of the departmental examination or from the date of completion of prescribed period of training. It is the case of the appellant-plaintiff that in the first seniority list of Inspectors of Co-operative Societies prepared on 01.04.1975, name of the plaintiff figured at Serial No. 169, whereas the name of defendant Nos. 3 and 4 appeared at serial No. 295 and 296 respectively. In the subsequent seniority list dated 01.02.1978, the name of the plaintiff was at Sr. No. 142 and the name of defendant Nos. 3 and 4 was at Sr. No. 224 and 225. It is the case of the appellant that vide orders dated 30.05.1986 and 19.02.1987, the seniority of defendant Nos. 3 and 4 has been re-fixed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff-appellant. In spite of many representations, no action was taken. As per the rules, seniority is required to be fixed from the date of passing of the departmental examination. The private defendants had earlier filed a Civil Writ Petition whereby the vires of Rules 5 and 6 of the 1936 Rules were challenged, but it was dismissed. The claim of the plaintiff was resisted by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 by filing written statement by submitting that no notice under Section 80 C.P.C. was given, civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. It is the case of the department that the appellant-plaintiff was promoted from the post of Sub Inspector, Cooperative Societies to the post of Inspector and he joined as such on 12.07.1968 and he passed the departmental examination / training in January, 1972. It is submitted that in the seniority list dated 07.07.1975, the appellant-plaintiff was shown to be senior to defendant Nos. 3 and 4 as defendant Nos. 3 and 4 who were senior to the plaintiff could not be promoted along with the plaintiff w.e.f. 12.07.1968 as some complaints / criminal cases were pending against them. The allegations in the complaint were not proved so they were promoted in the year 1971 and later on vide order dated 30.03.1978, they had been given the deemed date of promotion as Inspector w.e.f. 12.07.1968 date of promotion of the plaintiff. As a result of it, seniority of defendant Nos. 3 and 4 has been re-fixed at that place and refixation was done in pursuance of their promotion and they were placed at Sr. No. 141-A and 141-B respectively. This has been rectified in view of the promotions of the defendants subsequently with retrospective effect. The Trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the impugned order dated 30.5.86, 19.2.87, 20.2.90 and 26/27.2.90 effecting the seniority of the plaintiff are illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is senior in service to the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 and is entitled for all monetary benefits OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form OPD 4. Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide this case OPD 5. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80 C.P.C. OPD 6. Relief.
(2.) The learned Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant vide judgment and decree dated 30.01.1995. Against the said judgment and decree, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff-appellant, which has also been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra vide judgment and decree dated 24.04.1997. Hence, this regular second appeal.
(3.) At the time of filing of the appeal, no substantial question of law was framed nor mentioned in the grounds of appeal. However, at the time of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that following questions of law arises in this appeal: Whether the judgment and decree of the learned Courts below are based on mis-interpretation of relevant rules and thus perverse ;