Pratap Krishna Lohra, J. - (1.) APPELLANT -plaintiff, by the instant second appeal, has questioned the judgment and decree dated 28th of August, 1991, passed by Additional Civil Judge No. 1 Udaipur (for short, 'learned lower appellate Court'), whereby the learned lower appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree dated 9th of August, 1988 passed by Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur City, North, Udaipur (for short, 'learned trial Court') by decreeing the suit filed by the appellant.
(2.) SUCCINCTLY stated the facts of the case are that appellant was in employment of Bank of Rajasthan (now ICICI Bank) as cashier -cum -godown keeper. On 2nd of September, 1982, General Manager of the Bank invited applications from in -service candidates for recruitment/promotion in the officer cadre and pursuant thereto, appellant submitted his application form through proper channel on 30th September, 1982. The application form was forwarded to the Head Office of the Bank on 4th of October, 1982 and, on scrutiny, same did not find favour and an order, to this affect, was conveyed to the appellant on 23rd of October, 1982. By the aforesaid order, the appellant was conveyed that his form is rejected by citing the reason that he is ineligible to participate in the competitive examination for two years in terms of bipartite settlement dated 17th November, 1980, w.e.f. 31st of December, 1981. In terms of bipartite settlement dated 17th November, 1980, on account of suffering penalty of withholding one annual grade increment, the appellant was declared ineligible to take up competitive examination. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid communication, appellant instituted two separate civil suits. In one suit, validity of departmental inquiry and consequential order of punishment was challenged and, relief for declaring departmental inquiry as well as consequential punishment order and appellate order as null and void was sought. In the second suit communication dated 23rd of October, 1982 was challenged, whereby appellant was debarred from taking part in competitive examination for promotion in the officer cadre. The suit, wherein departmental inquiry and consequential orders were under challenge, was decided against the appellant inasmuch as the crucial issue, in that suit, i.e., Issue No. 3, relating to jurisdiction of civil court, was decided against him. However, second suit of the appellant, in which communication dated 23rd of October, 1982 was under challenge, was tried by the learned trial Court and adjudicated on merits. The learned trial Court decided the issue, relating to jurisdiction in favour of appellant, by holding that the suit is triable by civil Court. While adverting to other issues, the learned trial Court decided all the issues, in favour of the appellant, and decreed the suit by declaring communication dated 23rd of October, 1982 as null and void and further held that respondent -Bank may re -initiate process for selection by departmental examination afresh qua appellant in the officer cadre.
(3.) FEELING disgruntled by the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, respondent -Bank approached the First Appellate Court by laying appeal under Section 96 CPC before the learned District Judge, Udaipur. The learned District Judge, Udaipur, considering the prevalent trend, transferred the matter for its disposal to Additional Civil Judge No. 1, Udaipur, i.e., the learned lower appellate Court. The learned lower appellate Court, thereafter, examined the matter afresh and found fault with the findings and conclusions of the learned trial Court on all the issues. The learned lower appellate Court, while relying on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in The Premier Automobiles Ltd. V/s. Kamlakar Shantaram Wadke & Ors. [ : AIR 1975 SC 2238], recorded a definite finding that suit of such nature is not maintainable before civil Court and the remedy available to the appellant is before the Industrial Courts.;