Kan Singh, J. - (1.) THIS is a plaintiff's appeal directed against the judgment and decree to the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City dismissing the plaintiff's suit, for declaring him as a validity appointed Professor and Director of the Rajasthan College of Commerce and for other consequential reliefs, on a preliminary point which was subject matter of issue No. 27.
(2.) THE plaintiff averred that he was appointed as Head of the Department in Maharaja's College, Jaipur on 1st August, 1933 and he became the Principal of Rajasthan College of Commerce in the year 1956. In this capacity he came to be elected as a member of the Syndicate of the Rajasthan University, Defendant No. 1 for a period of three years from 1957 to I960. On 4th January, 1960 defendant No. 3 Dr. M.S. Mehta assumed charge as the Vice Chancellor of the University of Rajasthan. In May 1961 the University of Rajasthan decided to accept the Government, proposal for taking over the College of Commerce along with two other Colleges. As a sequel to the transfer of the three colleges the existing administration and the attached staff were to be transferred to the University on certain terms. According to the plaintiff certain proposals regarding the proposed strength of the attached staff came before a meeting of the Syndicate. Eventually, a high -powered committee was appointed for making certain selections. The plaintiff claimed that on 8th July, 1962 he was selected by the high powered committee to being appointed as a Director (Principal) of the Commerce College. Defendant No. 3 however, did not communicate this decision of the high -powered committee to the Syndicate but issued a duty chart on 18th July, 1962 appointing the plaintiff as the Director of the Commerce College temporarily. The plaintiff further averred that on 25th September, 1962 the Syndicate confirmed him on the post of the Director cum -Principal. His grievance was that though he was confirmed at. this meeting on the very next day, that is, on 26th September 1962, the defendant No. 3 got a meeting of the Syndicate convened and at this subsequent meeting the plaintiff's confirmation on the post of the Director -cum -Principal was re -opened and it was left to be decided on a later date. There are several other averments in the plaint but it is not necessary to recapitulate them here. The defendant No. 2 came to be appointed as a Professor of Commerce and Director of the University College of Commerce The plaintiff is impugning the appointment of defendant No. 2 as Professor of Commerce & as Director on a number of grounds. He has claimed for himself that it was he who had been appointed as Professor & Director of the College of Commerce by the Syndicate on 25th September, 1962,
(3.) THE plaintiff filed the suit in the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Jaipur City on 8th July 1966. The three defendants, namely, the University of Rajasthan, Shri Om Prakash Mathur, Director of College of Commerce, Jaipur and Dr. Mohan Singh Mehta, Ex -Vice Chancellor, University of Rajasthan contested the suit on a number of grounds. The learned Additional District Judge No. 1 who tried the suit subsequent to re -designation of the court of the Senior Civil Judge as Additional District Judge framed 27 issues in all. The last issue, i, e. issue No. 27 was as follows: Whether the plaintiff has no right to challenge the validity of appointment of the defendant No. 2 by virtue of the University of Rajasthan (Amending & Validating) Act 10 of 1964 & the plaintiff's suit is not maintainable? The learned Additional District Judge took this up as a preliminary issue. The learned Judge considered the effect of Section 5 of the University of Rajasthan (Amending and Validating) Act, 1964 and held that "it did not lie in the mouth of the plaintiff to find fault with the appointment of the defendant No. 2 on the score that the Syndicate had not created such a post and had not got the recommendation of the Academic Council as required under the Statute of the University because under Clause (iii) of the Act, 1964 the action taken by the Syndicate has to be deemed to have been validly taken, notwithstanding anything contained in the principal Act" The learned Judge repelled the argument of the learned Counsel for the plaintiff that, the action of the Syndicate was against the principal Act observed that Section 5(iii) of the validating Act made it abundantly clear that notwithstanding anything contained in she - principal Act any action taken by the re -constituted authority shall be deemed to have been validly taken. The learned Judge also observed. "The (sic) of the facts is that I cannot sit in judgment over the action of the Syndicate in appointing the defendant No. 2 to the post of Director and Professor of the Commerce College in preference to the plaintiff because that act has been deemed to have been validly taken under Clause (iii) of Section 5 of the University of the Rajasthan Act." The learned Judge was not impressed by the plaintiff's submission that the court may go into the question of the alleged (sic) and grave irregularities and illegalities allegedly committed by the defendant No. 3 in getting the defendant No. 2 appointed as professor and Director of the Commerce College because, the learned Judge thought, such inquiry was hatred under cl. (iii) of Section 5 of the Act. In the result, the learned judge decided issue No. 27 in favour of Deft No. 2 Having recorded an order disposing of issue No. 27 the learned Judge then thought of writing a separate judgment. He narrated the facts, reproduced all the issues and then finally heard argument on issue No. 27 as on that issue the decision of the suit hinged He observed that he had passed a separate order deciding the issue against the plaintiff. In consequence he dismissed the suit.;