M. CHANDAN Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Shri M. Chandran joined as Vice-Principal of Tashi Namgyal Academy, Higher Secondary Public School at Gantok on 28th May, 1982. In Dec., 1982 the post of the Principal of that school fell vacant and so the petitioner acted as Principal for some time until 25th April, 1983 when on the appointment of new principal, he joined as Officer-on-Special-Duty in the Department of Education, Government of Sikkim under contract service. He has alleged in this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution that this post he joined on the representation of Shri M.M. Rasaily, the then Secretary, Education Department, (Respondent No. 8) that he would be given the rank of Additional Secretary and that he had already talked about it to the Chief Minister who had agreed for it, but, the appointment letter dated 28-7-83 from the Secretary Establishment Department (Respondent No. 4) gave him only the rank of Joint Director without incorporating the mutually agreed terms and without following the prescribed procedure. Therefore, the petitioner, as he alleged in his petition, met Shri M.M. Rasaily and talked to him all about this when Shri Rasaily assured him that the appointment order would be revised to give him the rank of Additional Director "when tire next proceedings relating to the petitioner's salary were issued", but the appointment order was not revised and he was not given the rank of Additional Director even after several assurances were given by Shri Rasaily and the matter was brought to the notice of the Chief Minister. The Chief Secretary and the Education Minister. On 24-3-84 he received an office order dated 16-3-84 issued by Shri L.B. Rai, Joint Secretary, Establishment Department terminating his contract service as Officer-on-Special-Duty, The petitioner has challenged the validity of this termination order and has also claimed mandamus for issue of an order appointing him as Officer-on-Special-Duty, Education Department with the rank of Additional Director of Education with effect from 25th April, 1983.

(2.) On 28th Aug., 1984, Shri M. M. Rasaily, respondent No. 8, filed an affidavit denying the petitioner's allegations about representation and assurances that the petitioner would be given the rank of Additional Director and alleging that the petitioner had himself acquiesced in the impugned order of termination, by applying for fresh appointment as Vice-Principal at D.B.M.S. School at Jameshedpur and getting himself selected there. On the same date, the respondents moved an application which was registered as a Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 65 of 1984 for a direction to implead the Principal, DBMS School as a respondent, with an order to file a reply on the following two points:-

(3.) It would thus appear that the petitioner has not been candid in placing full and complete facts before the court. He did not disclose, of his own, about his making application for the post of Vice-Principal in DBMS School, Jamshedpur and of his selection to that post. He did not admit these facts even after they were averred by Shri M.M. Rasaily, respondent No. 8 in his affidavit dated 28th Aug., 1984. Instead of admitting the facts or making denial about them, he indulged in arguments and thus tried to evade the facts. Subsequently, though he admitted the facts in his own language, yet refused to file the relevant documents on the ground that the documents were confidential and privileged dealing with his private affairs. He could not place any material in support of his plea of privilege and his claim about privilege is entirely untenable. It is not understandable what interest the petitioner may be trying to protect by withholding these documents from the Court, except that he may be trying to play the game of hide and seek in an attempt to secure an unjust order from the court. The plea of the acquiescence cannot be said to be unfounded, and the court is certainly not under any constraint to make a decision over it relying on his affidavit containing certain admissions, which admissions he made after much reluctance. The Court is entitled to look into the documents themselves before arriving at the decision and it is in fact its duty to look into the documents in its own interest, in order to protect itself against any fraud that may be committed otherwise. For getting the documents, ordinarily the court would have impleaded the principal concerned as per the dictum of law contained in Udit Narain Singh Vs. Board of Revenue, AIR 1963 SC 786, but it would be wholly unjust to implead a person as a party only to have the documents on record, when the petitioner himself is in a position to file the same. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, the application moved by the respondents for impleading the Principal as a party vide miscellaneous case No. 65 of 1984 is liable to be rejected.