SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE appellants seek to challenge the judgment and decree dated August 16, 1985 of the learned Additional Civil Judge No. 2 Ajmer whereby the civil regular first appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated January 25, 1985 of learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Ajmer City (East) Ajmer was dismissed and decree in Suit No. 217/78 was confirmed.
(2.) THE parties shall be referred herein in the same manner as they were arrayed in the civil suit. Brief re'sume' of the facts is that the plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration and recovery in the trial court with the averments that the plaintiff was initially appointed as Meter Reader on December....... in the Amalgamated Electricity Company Ltd. Ajmer and thereafter he worked on the post of Assistant Inspector and Meter Tester carrying a pay scale of Rs. 130-7-200-8-240. The Amalgamated Electricity Company Ltd. merged in Rajasthan State Electricity Board (in short RSEB) on September 1, 1971 as a result of which the plaintiff came to be absorbed/appointed on the post of Meter Inspector Grade II in the pay scale of Rs. 126-250 on the recommendation of the Screening Committee appointed by the RSEB with effect from September 1, 1971. The plaintiff claimed that the order of appointment/absorption was unjustified and illegal inasmuch as the employees with lesser period of service and possessing lesser qualifications were fixed in higher pay scales as per Schedule `Ka' annexed to the plaint. The plaintiff served a legal notice and thereafter preferred appeal which was dismissed on Feb. 3, 1978. The plaintiff assailed the dismissal order on various grounds and claimed that looking to his comparative merit he ought to have been appointed in the scale/grade of Rs. 190-400 with effect from September 1, 1971 i.e. on the post of Meter Tester I and Foreman and the plaintiff sought a declaration to this effect. A sum of Rs. 1175.30 paise was also claimed as the amount of arrears payable to the plaintiff as a result of the aforementioned declaration. Joint written statement was filed by the defendants wherein the claim sought by the plaintiff was disputed. It was denied that there was any merger of Amalgamated Electricity Company on September 1, 1971 since the services of all the employees of Amalgamated Electricity Company working in Ajmer Branch were retrenched and those employees who had rendered more than one year's service were appointed provisionally on adhoc basis for a period of six months in the Board or till the screening by the Screening Committee whichever was earlier. On the recommendation of the Screening Committee, the plaintiff was appointed as Inspector Grade II in the pay scale of Rs. 126-250. It was pleaded that the persons with whom the plaintiff had made a comparison in regard to seniority and pay scale were necessary parties and in their absence the suit was liable to be dismissed. It was also pleaded that the suit was filed by the plaintiff without any cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed as many as 8 issues. The plaintiff examined two witnesses besides himself in support of its case. The defendants examined one witness. The learned trial court after hearing the parties decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and quashed the order of the appellate authority and the plaintiff was declared to have been appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 190-400 with effect from September 1, 1971. The trial court also declared that the plaintiff was entitled to payment of Rs. 1175.30 from the defendants towards arrears of pay and allowance including costs. Dis-satisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree dated January 25, 1985 of the learned trial court the plaintiff preferred civil regular first appeal which was dismissed by the learned appellate court as indicated hereinabove. Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the defendants canvassed that as per the Regulations for the absorption of the staff of Private Electricity Supply Undertakings taken over by the RSEB, the plaintiff was entitled to be retained and continued provisionally for a period of six months from the date of taking over of the Amalgamated Electricity Company. The RSEB under the Regulations have the power to discharge any such employee, who had provisionally contained in the service of the RSEB if his services were not required by the RSEB or if the employee was found unsuitable for absorption in the services of the RSEB. I was taken through the Regulations 9 and 10 by the learned counsel and it was contended that there being no allegation of malice against any of the members of the Screening Committee the suit for declaration was not maintainable and the impugned findings of the courts below are without jurisdiction. It was further argued that the courts below while passing the impugned judgments usurp the functions and powers of the Screening Committee. On the other hand, Mr. B.L. Samadaria, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff supported the findings of the courts below and canvassed that the learned trial court had jurisdiction to quash the appellate order as well as to award the decree of declaration. While admitting the instant second appeal on January 6, 1986, following substantial questions of law were framed by this court. (1) Whether the courts below have jurisdiction to review the order of Screening Committee which had adjudged suitability of the plaintiff respondent for absorption on the post? (2) Whether decision of the Screening Committee appointed under Regulation 9 of the relevant Regulations is justifiable? (3) Whether the respondent having appeared before the Screening Committee which was duly constituted can now be allowed to challenge its decision or he should have taken action under Regulation 10 of the Regulations? (4) Wether courts while deciding the case of the respondent could compare with other employees named in Schedule `Ka' annexed to the plaint?
(3.) I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. A look at the statement of Mahesh Chandra Agrawal DW.1, who was Assistant Engineer in RSEB demonstrates that the record of the Screening Committee was not produced before the learned trial court. This witness deposed that without perusing the record he was not in a position to say as to whether the plaintiff was suitable and qualified or not. This witness also stated that he did not know about the Rules framed by the RSEB in respect of examination of suitability by the Screening Committee. It appears that the decree of the trial court is based on uncontroverted testimony of the plaintiff witnesses as the statement of DW.1 was vague and he did not controvert the statements made by the plaintiffs witnesses. In the impugned judgment the learned trial court considered the Regulations 9 and 10 of the Regulations of the RSEB and all the issues were decided after properly appreciating the evidence of the parties as well as the legal position. The learned appellate court has also discussed and considered the testimony of the witnesses and observed in the impugned judgment that the plaintiff was successful in proving all the issues. The plaintiff's witnesses were not properly cross examined by the RSEB but witness DW 1 was produced who did not controvert the testimony of plaintiff witnesses. The statement of DW.1 was termed as vague statement and the civil regular first appeal of the defendants was dismissed by a well reasoned order. Under these circumstances the findings of the courts below in respect of Screening Committee as well as Regulations 9 and 10 of the Regulations of the RSEB cannot be reappreicated. I do not see any infirmity in the concurrent findings arrived at by the learned courts below. Resultantly, the instant civil second appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Costs easy. The record of the case be sent back. ;