RSA No.4102 of 2007 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 128 SMT. SUSHILA DEVI SMT. SUSHILA DEVI SMT. SUSHILA DEVI SMT. SUSHILA DEVI Vs Vs Vs Vs J.D.K.D.E.S. PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ORS. J.D.K.D.E.S. PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ORS. J.D.K.D.E.S. PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ORS. J.D.K.D.E.S. PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ORS. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH Present: Mr. Narender Kaajla, Advocate Mr. H.S. Saini, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.A. Sheoran, Advocate for HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) The by the respondent Nos.1 to 4/ First Appellate Court, thereby setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. as per their status in the Civil Suit. [2]. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree dated 07.09.2007 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Bhiwani Court Court Court Court””””), whereby an appeal filed at the instance of respondent Nos.1 to 4/defendant Nos.1 to 4 against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2003 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Charkhi Dadri be referred as the appellant-plaintiff, was accepted; thereby setting aside the judgment and decree RSA No.4102 of 2007 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. RSA No. RSA No. RSA No.4102 4102 4102 4102 Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: SMT. SUSHILA DEVI SMT. SUSHILA DEVI SMT. SUSHILA DEVI SMT. SUSHILA DEVI J.D.K.D.E.S. PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ORS. J.D.K.D.E.S. PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ORS. J.D.K.D.E.S. PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ORS. J.D.K.D.E.S. PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ORS. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH Mr. Narender Kaajla, Advocate and Mr. H.S. Saini, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.A. Sheoran, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) The appellant-plaintif is in appeal before this Court respondent Nos.1 to 4/-defendant Nos.1 to 4 First Appellate Court, thereby setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being r as per their status in the Civil Suit. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree dated 07.09.2007 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Bhiwani(hereinafter to be r ), whereby an appeal filed at the instance of respondent Nos.1 to defendant Nos.1 to 4 against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2003 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Charkhi Dadri be referred as the““““Trial Court Trial Court Trial Court Trial Court””””)))) decreeing the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff, was accepted; thereby setting aside the judgment and decree IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH 4102 4102 4102 4102 of of of of 2007 2007 2007 2007 (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: 16 16 16 16.0.0.0.07777.202 .202 .202 .2026666 ...... ...... ...... ......Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant ....Respondent ....Respondent ....Respondent ....Respondent((((ssss)))) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ MANUJ MANUJ MANUJAAAA and before this Court. First appeal filed Nos.1 to 4 was accepted by the learned First Appellate Court, thereby setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree dated 07.09.2007 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, (hereinafter to be referred as the““““First Appellate First Appellate First Appellate First Appellate ), whereby an appeal filed at the instance of respondent Nos.1 to defendant Nos.1 to 4 against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2003 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Charkhi Dadri(hereinafter to decreeing the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff, was accepted; thereby setting aside the judgment and decree 1 . First appeal filed rned First Appellate Court, thereby setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the eferred to By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree dated 07.09.2007 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, First Appellate First Appellate First Appellate First Appellate ), whereby an appeal filed at the instance of respondent Nos.1 to defendant Nos.1 to 4 against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2003 passed after to decreeing the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff, was accepted; thereby setting aside the judgment and decree MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.24 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RSA No.4102 of 2007 (O&M) passed by the learned Trial Court; consequently, the suit for declaration preferred at the instance of the appellant [3]. Briefly stating, a suit for declaration was filed at the instance of the appellant/plaintiff alleging that defendant No.1 was an educational institution affiliated with the C governed by its rules and bye appointed as a Math Mistress in February 1994. Her services were terminated on 25.05.1994 at the commencement of the summer vacations, whereafte appointed in July 1994. A similar course was followed in May 1995, when her services were terminated at the start of the summer vacations and she was re appointed in July 1995. Thereafter, she continued in service till 19.05.1997, when her services were terminated. According to the plaintiff, defendant No.2 its meeting held on 06.04.1997, resolved to remove her on the ground that the staff was surplus, despite the meeting that although the services of three other teachers were also declared surplus, the defendants published an advertisement on 13.04.1997 inviting applications for the same post, indicating that her termination was defendant No.5. The pla her termination during its pendency, the suit was withdrawn infructuous. In the 24.04.1997 and 19.05.1997 as illegal, n rules and bye-laws and violative of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, she sought reinstatement as Math Mistress in the prescribed pay scale along with arrears of salary and all consequential benefits. RSA No.4102 of 2007 (O&M) passed by the learned Trial Court; consequently, the suit for declaration preferred at the instance of the appellant-plaintiff was dismissed. Briefly stating, a suit for declaration was filed at the instance of the appellant/plaintiff alleging that defendant No.1 was an educational institution affiliated with the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) and was governed by its rules and bye-laws relating to appointments. appointed as a Math Mistress in February 1994. Her services were terminated on 25.05.1994 at the commencement of the summer vacations, whereafte appointed in July 1994. A similar course was followed in May 1995, when her services were terminated at the start of the summer vacations and she was re appointed in July 1995. Thereafter, she continued in service till 19.05.1997, when vices were terminated. According to the plaintiff, defendant No.2 its meeting held on 06.04.1997, resolved to remove her on the ground that the staff was surplus, despite the meeting, lacking the requisite quorum. She further alleged ugh the services of three other teachers were also declared surplus, the defendants published an advertisement on 13.04.1997 inviting applications for the same post, indicating that her termination was defendant No.5. The plaintiff had initially filed a suit for injunction; however, upon her termination during its pendency, the suit was withdrawn In the civil suit, she challenged the termination orders dated 24.04.1997 and 19.05.1997 as illegal, null and void, being contrary to the CBSE laws and violative of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, she sought reinstatement as Math Mistress in the prescribed pay scale along with arrears of salary and all consequential benefits. passed by the learned Trial Court; consequently, the suit for declaration preferred plaintiff was dismissed. Briefly stating, a suit for declaration was filed at the instance of the appellant/plaintiff alleging that defendant No.1 was an educational institution condary Education (CBSE) and was laws relating to appointments. The plaintiff was appointed as a Math Mistress in February 1994. Her services were terminated on 25.05.1994 at the commencement of the summer vacations, whereafter she was re appointed in July 1994. A similar course was followed in May 1995, when her services were terminated at the start of the summer vacations and she was re appointed in July 1995. Thereafter, she continued in service till 19.05.1997, when vices were terminated. According to the plaintiff, defendant No.2/society, its meeting held on 06.04.1997, resolved to remove her on the ground that the staff lacking the requisite quorum. She further alleged ugh the services of three other teachers were also declared surplus, the defendants published an advertisement on 13.04.1997 inviting applications for the same post, indicating that her termination was effected merely to accommodate intiff had initially filed a suit for injunction; however, upon her termination during its pendency, the suit was withdrawn as having become suit, she challenged the termination orders dated ull and void, being contrary to the CBSE laws and violative of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, she sought reinstatement as Math Mistress in the prescribed pay scale along with 2 passed by the learned Trial Court; consequently, the suit for declaration preferred Briefly stating, a suit for declaration was filed at the instance of the appellant/plaintiff alleging that defendant No.1 was an educational institution condary Education (CBSE) and was The plaintiff was appointed as a Math Mistress in February 1994. Her services were terminated on r she was re- appointed in July 1994. A similar course was followed in May 1995, when her services were terminated at the start of the summer vacations and she was re- appointed in July 1995. Thereafter, she continued in service till 19.05.1997, when /society, in its meeting held on 06.04.1997, resolved to remove her on the ground that the staff lacking the requisite quorum. She further alleged ugh the services of three other teachers were also declared surplus, the defendants published an advertisement on 13.04.1997 inviting applications for the merely to accommodate intiff had initially filed a suit for injunction; however, upon as having become suit, she challenged the termination orders dated ull and void, being contrary to the CBSE laws and violative of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, she sought reinstatement as Math Mistress in the prescribed pay scale along with MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.24 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RSA No.4102 of 2007 (O&M) [4]. Upon notice, respondent Nos.1 to 4/defendant Nos.1 to 4 appeared and filed joint written statement taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the suit, joinder and mis- further pleaded that the services of the appellant/plaintiff were under the purview of personal contract and the same cannot be enforced through the intervention of the Court. The appellant teacher purely on probation and her services were terminated in accordance with law by releasing her salary and other allowances till 31.05.1997, therefore, therefore, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed. [5]. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues: “1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. RSA No.4102 of 2007 (O&M) Upon notice, respondent Nos.1 to 4/defendant Nos.1 to 4 appeared and filed joint written statement taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the suit, locus standi of the appellant/plaintiff to file suit, non -joinder of necessary parties besides taking other objection. It was further pleaded that the services of the appellant/plaintiff were under the purview of personal contract and the same cannot be enforced through the intervention of the Court. The appellant-plaintiff was appointed on temporary basis as Math teacher purely on probation and her services were terminated in accordance with law by releasing her salary and other allowances till 31.05.1997, therefore, therefore, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:- Whether the resolution dt. 6.4.97 of deft. No.2 and order of termination of service of plaintiff vide order No.49 dated 25.4.97 and 19.5.97 passed by the defendant No.3 is illegal, null and void and is not binding on the rights of the plaintiff? OPP. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to be re post with the same pay scale as prayed for? OPP Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the increment and other benefits with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of previous appointment i.e. Feb. 1994 like other staff members as alleged? OPP Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the suit? OPD Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD Whether the suit is bad for non necessary parties? OPD Whether the plaintiff is estopped by her own act conduct to file the suit? OPD. Relief.” Upon notice, respondent Nos.1 to 4/defendant Nos.1 to 4 appeared and filed joint written statement taking preliminary objections regarding of the appellant/plaintiff to file suit, non r of necessary parties besides taking other objection. It was further pleaded that the services of the appellant/plaintiff were under the purview of personal contract and the same cannot be enforced through the intervention of ntiff was appointed on temporary basis as Math teacher purely on probation and her services were terminated in accordance with law by releasing her salary and other allowances till 31.05.1997, therefore, therefore, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed. Replication was filed. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed Whether the resolution dt. 6.4.97 of deft. No.2 and order of termination of service of plaintiff vide order No.49 dated 25.4.97 and 19.5.97 passed by the defendant No.3 is illegal, null and void and is not binding on the rights of the plaintiff? OPP. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to be re-appointed on the same post with the same pay scale as prayed for? OPP her the plaintiff is entitled to get the increment and other benefits with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of previous appointment i.e. Feb. 1994 like other staff members as alleged? Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the suit? Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of Whether the plaintiff is estopped by her own act conduct to file 3 Upon notice, respondent Nos.1 to 4/defendant Nos.1 to 4 appeared and filed joint written statement taking preliminary objections regarding of the appellant/plaintiff to file suit, non- r of necessary parties besides taking other objection. It was further pleaded that the services of the appellant/plaintiff were under the purview of personal contract and the same cannot be enforced through the intervention of ntiff was appointed on temporary basis as Math teacher purely on probation and her services were terminated in accordance with law by releasing her salary and other allowances till 31.05.1997, therefore, On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed Whether the resolution dt. 6.4.97 of deft. No.2 and order of termination of service of plaintiff vide order No.49 dated 25.4.97 and 19.5.97 passed by the defendant No.3 is illegal, null and void and is not binding on the rights of the plaintiff? OPP. appointed on the same her the plaintiff is entitled to get the increment and other benefits with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of previous appointment i.e. Feb. 1994 like other staff members as alleged? Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the suit? Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD joinder of Whether the plaintiff is estopped by her own act conduct to file MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.24 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RSA No.4102 of 2007 (O&M) [6]. The learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 23.12.2003, decreed the suit with costs in favour of the appellant termination of the appellant entitled for re- defendant No.1- [7]. Aggrieved thereof, the respondent No.1 to 4 filed the first appeal, 07.09.2007passed by the learned First Appellate Court and consequently, the suit for declaration preferred at the instance of the appellant Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal. CONTENTIONS RAISED ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT CONTENTIONS RAISED ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT CONTENTIONS RAISED ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT CONTENTIONS RAISED ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT [8]. Lear Trial Court rightly that despite her satisfactory work and conduct during probation, her services were terminated on the simultaneously decided to fill the same post through a fresh appointment. further argued that the termination was effected in violation of the applicable Affiliation Rules Court, despite not disturbing these findings, erroneously reversed the decree solely on the ground that the contract of personal service was not specifically enforceable, overlooking the fact that the appellant Affiliation Rules. CONTENTIONS RAISED ON BEHALF OF CONTENTIONS RAISED ON BEHALF OF CONTENTIONS RAISED ON BEHALF OF CONTENTIONS RAISED ON BEHALF OF [9]. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents that the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2003 passed by the learned Firs Appellate Court is based on a proper appreciation of the pleadings, evidence on RSA No.4102 of 2007 (O&M) The learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 23.12.2003, decreed the suit with costs in favour of the appellant termination of the appellant-plaintiff was held to be illegal and she was held to be -appointment as Mathematics Mistress under the respondent/ -School in the same pay scale. Aggrieved thereof, the respondent No.1 to 4 filed the first appeal, which was accepted vide judgment and decree dated ed by the learned First Appellate Court and consequently, the suit for declaration preferred at the instance of the appellant Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal. CONTENTIONS RAISED ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT CONTENTIONS RAISED ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT CONTENTIONS RAISED ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT CONTENTIONS RAISED ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT Learned counsel for the appellant- Trial Court rightly held the termination of her services to be illegal, having found that despite her satisfactory work and conduct during probation, her services were terminated on the ground of reduction in strength while the respondents simultaneously decided to fill the same post through a fresh appointment. further argued that the termination was effected in violation of the applicable Affiliation Rules. Learned counsel further submits that the Court, despite not disturbing these findings, erroneously reversed the decree solely on the ground that the contract of personal service was not specifically enforceable, overlooking the fact that the appellant’s service conditions were governed by the Affiliation Rules. CONTENTIONS RAISED ON BEHALF OF CONTENTIONS RAISED ON BEHALF OF CONTENTIONS RAISED ON BEHALF OF CONTENTIONS RAISED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT RESPONDENT RESPONDENT RESPONDENT Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents that the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2003 passed by the learned Firs Appellate Court is based on a proper appreciation of the pleadings, evidence on The learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 23.12.2003, decreed the suit with costs in favour of the appellant-plaintiff. The plaintiff was held to be illegal and she was held to be ent as Mathematics Mistress under the respondent/ Aggrieved thereof, the respondent No.1 to 4-defendant Nos.1 to 4 which was accepted vide judgment and decree dated ed by the learned First Appellate Court and consequently, the suit for declaration preferred at the instance of the appellant-plaintiff was dismissed. CONTENTIONS RAISED ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT CONTENTIONS RAISED ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT CONTENTIONS RAISED ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT CONTENTIONS RAISED ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT----PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF -plaintiff contends that the learned eld the termination of her services to be illegal, having found that despite her satisfactory work and conduct during probation, her services were ground of reduction in strength while the respondents simultaneously decided to fill the same post through a fresh appointment. It further argued that the termination was effected in violation of the applicable submits that the learned First Appellate Court, despite not disturbing these findings, erroneously reversed the decree solely on the ground that the contract of personal service was not specifically enforceable, ervice conditions were governed by the RESPONDENT RESPONDENT RESPONDENT RESPONDENT----DEFENDANT DEFENDANT DEFENDANT DEFENDANT Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-defendants submits that the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2003 passed by the learned Firs Appellate Court is based on a proper appreciation of the pleadings, evidence on 4 The learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated plaintiff. The plaintiff was held to be illegal and she was held to be ent as Mathematics Mistress under the respondent/ defendant Nos.1 to 4 which was accepted vide judgment and decree dated ed by the learned First Appellate Court and consequently, the suit plaintiff was dismissed. plaintiff contends that the learned eld the termination of her services to be illegal, having found that despite her satisfactory work and conduct during probation, her services were ground of reduction in strength while the respondents It is further argued that the termination was effected in violation of the applicable learned First Appellate Court, despite not disturbing these findings, erroneously reversed the decree solely on the ground that the contract of personal service was not specifically enforceable, ervice conditions were governed by the defendants submits that the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2003 passed by the learned First Appellate Court is based on a proper appreciation of the pleadings, evidence on MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.24 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RSA No.4102 of 2007 (O&M) record and the settled legal position governing the controversy. It is, thus, contended that the impugned judgment suffers from no illegality or infirmity warranting interfer deserves to be dismissed FINDING AND REASONING FINDING AND REASONING FINDING AND REASONING FINDING AND REASONING [10]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book and records of the case as well. [11]. A perusal of the record appointed as Maths Mistress probation for a period of one year with effect from 01.07.1996 (Ex.D her services came to be terminated vide orders dated 25.04. 19.05.1997(Ex.D passed by respondent No.2/defendant No.2 served with one month's notice dated 25.04.1997 (Ex.D and allowances up to 31.05.1997. respondent No.1/defendant No.1 is a private relationship between the appellant Nos.1 to 4 was governed by established principle of law capable of specific enforcement and a civil Court would not grant a declaration of continuance in service or reinstatement, exc exceptional circumstances in the case of Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College Vs. Lakshmi Narain, Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College Vs. Lakshmi Narain, Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College Vs. Lakshmi Narain, Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College Vs. Lakshmi Narain, reported as “1976 AIR (SC) 888” “1976 AIR (SC) 888” “1976 AIR (SC) 888” “1976 AIR (SC) 888” hereunder:- RSA No.4102 of 2007 (O&M) record and the settled legal position governing the controversy. It is, thus, contended that the impugned judgment suffers from no illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court and, consequently, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. FINDING AND REASONING FINDING AND REASONING FINDING AND REASONING FINDING AND REASONING I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book and records of the case as well. A perusal of the record reveals appointed as Maths Mistress with respondent No.1/defendant No.1 probation for a period of one year with effect from 01.07.1996 (Ex.D her services came to be terminated vide orders dated 25.04. (Ex.D-4) in pursuance of the resolution dated 06.04.1997 passed by respondent No.2/defendant No.2-Society. The appellant served with one month's notice dated 25.04.1997 (Ex.D llowances up to 31.05.1997. It is further evident from the record that respondent No.1/defendant No.1 is a private relationship between the appellant-plaintiff and respondent Nos.1 to 4/defendant Nos.1 to 4 was governed by a personal contract of employment principle of law that a contract of personal service is not ordinarily capable of specific enforcement and a civil Court would not grant a declaration of continuance in service or reinstatement, exc exceptional circumstances such as those carved out by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College Vs. Lakshmi Narain, Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College Vs. Lakshmi Narain, Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College Vs. Lakshmi Narain, Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College Vs. Lakshmi Narain, “1976 AIR (SC) 888” “1976 AIR (SC) 888” “1976 AIR (SC) 888” “1976 AIR (SC) 888”. Relevant paragraph no. 18 and 28 record and the settled legal position governing the controversy. It is, thus, contended that the impugned judgment suffers from no illegality or infirmity ence by this Court and, consequently, the present appeal I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the reveals that the appellant-plaintiff was with respondent No.1/defendant No.1-School probation for a period of one year with effect from 01.07.1996 (Ex.D-1). However, her services came to be terminated vide orders dated 25.04.1997(Ex.D-2) and in pursuance of the resolution dated 06.04.1997(Ex.D Society. The appellant-plaintiff was served with one month's notice dated 25.04.1997 (Ex.D-2) and was paid her salary It is further evident from the record that respondent No.1/defendant No.1 is a private educational institution and the plaintiff and respondent Nos.1 to 4/defendant a personal contract of employment. It is well that a contract of personal service is not ordinarily capable of specific enforcement and a civil Court would not grant a declaration of continuance in service or reinstatement, except in certain well-recognised such as those carved out by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College Vs. Lakshmi Narain, Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College Vs. Lakshmi Narain, Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College Vs. Lakshmi Narain, Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College Vs. Lakshmi Narain, . Relevant paragraph no. 18 and 28 is extracted 5 record and the settled legal position governing the controversy. It is, thus, contended that the impugned judgment suffers from no illegality or infirmity ence by this Court and, consequently, the present appeal I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the plaintiff was on However, and (Ex.D-3) plaintiff was 2) and was paid her salary It is further evident from the record that and the plaintiff and respondent Nos.1 to 4/defendant It is well that a contract of personal service is not ordinarily capable of specific enforcement and a civil Court would not grant a declaration of recognised such as those carved out by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College Vs. Lakshmi Narain, Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College Vs. Lakshmi Narain, Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College Vs. Lakshmi Narain, Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College Vs. Lakshmi Narain, is extracted MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.24 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RSA No.4102 of 2007 (O&M) “On a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, it is, therefore, clear that a contract of personal service cannot ordinarily be specifically enforced and a Court normally would not give a declaration that the contract sub service can be deemed to be in service against the will and consent of the employer. This rule, however, is subject to three well recognised exceptions in contravention of the provisions of Article India; (ii) where a worker is sought to be reinstated on being dismissed under the Industrial Law, and (iii) whe violation of the mandatory provisions of the statute ************* 28. It seems to us that neither the First Additional Civil & Sessions Judge nor the High Court, while decreeing the plaintiff's suit, considered this aspect of the matter whether this was a fit case in which the discretion should have been exercised in favour of the respondent. It is manifestly clear from the authorities discussed above that the relief of declaration and injunction under the provisions discretionary and the plaintiff cannot claim it as of right. The relief has to be granted by the Court according to sound legal principles and justitiae. The Court has to administer justice between the partie convert itself into an instrument of injustice or an engine of oppression. In these circumstances, while exercising its discretionary powers the Court must keep in mind the well settled principles of justice and fair should exercise t justice is not an object which can be administered in vacuum.” [11.1]. In the present case, the appellant within any of the recognised exceptions enumerated by Laxmi Narayan’s case (supra) Laxmi Narayan’s case (supra) Laxmi Narayan’s case (supra) Laxmi Narayan’s case (supra) were governed by Article 311 of the Constitution of India, nor a workman seeking reinstatement under the Industrial Laws. Equally, respondent No.1 private educational institution and not a statutory body acting in breach of any mandatory statutory provision. Consequently, the contract governing the relationship between the parties remained one of personal service, which is not amenable to spec case of the appellant RSA No.4102 of 2007 (O&M) “On a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, it is, therefore, clear that a contract of personal service cannot ordinarily be specifically enforced and a Court normally would not give a declaration that the contract subsists and the employee, even after having been removed from service can be deemed to be in service against the will and consent of the employer. This rule, however, is subject to three well recognised exceptions-(i) where a public servant is sought to be r in contravention of the provisions of Article India; (ii) where a worker is sought to be reinstated on being dismissed under the Industrial Law, and (iii) whe violation of the mandatory provisions of the statute ************* 28. It seems to us that neither the First Additional Civil & Sessions Judge nor the High Court, while decreeing the plaintiff's suit, considered this aspect of the matter whether this was a fit case in which the discretion should have been exercised in favour of the respondent. It is manifestly clear from the authorities discussed above that the relief of declaration and injunction under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act is purely discretionary and the plaintiff cannot claim it as of right. The relief has to be granted by the Court according to sound legal principles and justitiae. The Court has to administer justice between the partie convert itself into an instrument of injustice or an engine of oppression. In these circumstances, while exercising its discretionary powers the Court must keep in mind the well settled principles of justice and fair should exercise the discretion only if the ends of justice require it, for justice is not an object which can be administered in vacuum.” In the present case, the appellant within any of the recognised exceptions enumerated by Laxmi Narayan’s case (supra) Laxmi Narayan’s case (supra) Laxmi Narayan’s case (supra) Laxmi Narayan’s case (supra).... She was neither a public servant whose services were governed by Article 311 of the Constitution of India, nor a workman seeking reinstatement under the Industrial Laws. Equally, respondent No.1 private educational institution and not a statutory body acting in breach of any mandatory statutory provision. Consequently, the contract governing the relationship between the parties remained one of personal service, which is not amenable to specific enforcement through a decree of the Civil Court. case of the appellant-plaintiff falls outside the recognised exceptions, no “On a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, it is, therefore, clear that a contract of personal service cannot ordinarily be specifically enforced and a Court normally would not give a declaration that the sists and the employee, even after having been removed from service can be deemed to be in service against the will and consent of the employer. This rule, however, is subject to three well recognised (i) where a public servant is sought to be removed from service in contravention of the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India; (ii) where a worker is sought to be reinstated on being dismissed under the Industrial Law, and (iii) where a statutory body acts in breach or violation of the mandatory provisions of the statute 28. It seems to us that neither the First Additional Civil & Sessions Judge nor the High Court, while decreeing the plaintiff's suit, considered this aspect of the matter whether this was a fit case in which the discretion should have been exercised in favour of the respondent. It is manifestly clear from the authorities discussed above that the relief of declaration and of the Specific Relief Act is purely discretionary and the plaintiff cannot claim it as of right. The relief has to be granted by the Court according to sound legal principles and ex debito justitiae. The Court has to administer justice between the parties and cannot convert itself into an instrument of injustice or an engine of oppression. In these circumstances, while exercising its discretionary powers the Court must keep in mind the well settled principles of justice and fair play and he discretion only if the ends of justice require it, for justice is not an object which can be administered in vacuum.” In the present case, the appellant-plaintiff admittedly does not fall within any of the recognised exceptions enumerated by the Hon'ble Apex Court She was neither a public servant whose services were governed by Article 311 of the Constitution of India, nor a workman seeking reinstatement under the Industrial Laws. Equally, respondent No.1-School is a private educational institution and not a statutory body acting in breach of any mandatory statutory provision. Consequently, the contract governing the relationship between the parties remained one of personal service, which is not ific enforcement through a decree of the Civil Court. Once the plaintiff falls outside the recognised exceptions, no 6 “On a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, it is, therefore, clear that a contract of personal service cannot ordinarily be specifically enforced and a Court normally would not give a declaration that the sists and the employee, even after having been removed from service can be deemed to be in service against the will and consent of the employer. This rule, however, is subject to three well recognised emoved from service of the Constitution of India; (ii) where a worker is sought to be reinstated on being dismissed re a statutory body acts in breach or 28. It seems to us that neither the First Additional Civil & Sessions Judge nor the High Court, while decreeing the plaintiff's suit, considered this aspect of the matter whether this was a fit case in which the discretion should have been exercised in favour of the respondent. It is manifestly clear from the authorities discussed above that the relief of declaration and of the Specific Relief Act is purely discretionary and the plaintiff cannot claim it as of right. The relief has to ex debito s and cannot convert itself into an instrument of injustice or an engine of oppression. In these circumstances, while exercising its discretionary powers the Court play and he discretion only if the ends of justice require it, for plaintiff admittedly does not fall the Hon'ble Apex Court in She was neither a public servant whose services were governed by Article 311 of the Constitution of India, nor a workman seeking l is a private educational institution and not a statutory body acting in breach of any mandatory statutory provision. Consequently, the contract governing the relationship between the parties remained one of personal service, which is not Once the plaintiff falls outside the recognised exceptions, no MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.24 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RSA No.4102 of 2007 (O&M) declaration of continuance in service or consequential relief of reinstatement could have been granted in exercise of Relief Act,1963 legal position laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and other binding precedents, rightly reversed the judgment and decree correctly held that the Civil Court could not have enforced the contract of personal service between the parties. [11.2]. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, finding no illegality or perversity with the findin Court, there being no evidence available on record; the present appeal, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed, while upholding the ju the learned First Appellate Court instance of the appellant [12]. All pending application July July July July 16 16 16 16, 202 , 202 , 202 , 2026666 Atik Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable RSA No.4102 of 2007 (O&M) declaration of continuance in service or consequential relief of reinstatement could have been granted in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction under the Specific ,1963. The learned First Appellate Court, while relying upon the settled legal position laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and other binding precedents, rightly reversed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and correctly held that the Civil Court could not have enforced the contract of personal service between the parties. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, finding no illegality or perversity with the findings of the fact recorded by the learned First Appellate Court, there being no misreading or any mis-interpretation evidence available on record; the present appeal, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed, while upholding the judgment and decree dated the learned First Appellate Court dismissing the instance of the appellant-plaintiff. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No declaration of continuance in service or consequential relief of reinstatement could the discretionary jurisdiction under the Specific . The learned First Appellate Court, while relying upon the settled legal position laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and other binding precedents, passed by the learned trial Court and correctly held that the Civil Court could not have enforced the contract of personal In view of the discussion made hereinabove, finding no illegality or gs of the fact recorded by the learned First Appellate interpretation of the pleadings and the evidence available on record; the present appeal, being devoid of merits, is hereby dgment and decree dated 07.09.2007 passed by dismissing the suit for declaration preferred at the , if any, shall stand disposed of. (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE 7 declaration of continuance in service or consequential relief of reinstatement could the discretionary jurisdiction under the Specific . The learned First Appellate Court, while relying upon the settled legal position laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and other binding precedents, passed by the learned trial Court and correctly held that the Civil Court could not have enforced the contract of personal In view of the discussion made hereinabove, finding no illegality or gs of the fact recorded by the learned First Appellate the pleadings and the evidence available on record; the present appeal, being devoid of merits, is hereby passed by suit for declaration preferred at the MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.24 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment