[2025:RJ-JP:20263] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 358/2009 Muveena Khatun D/o Shri Samshuddeen, Bada Nana Sahab, Bajaria, Dholpur Raj. ----Appellant Versus 1. District Education Officer Elementary Education-I, Dholpur Raj. 2. District Elementary Education, Bikaner Raj. 3. State Of Rajasthan Through District Collector, Dholpur Raj. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Udit Sapra, Adv for Mr. Anil Jain, Adv. For Respondent(s) : None HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 14/05/2025 This second appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) under Section 100 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Dholpur (for short ‘the appellate court’) in civil regular appeal No.194/2007, whereby the appellate court while allowing the appeal filed by the respondents- defendants (for short ‘the defendants) set aside the judgment and decree dated 10.02.2006 passed by the Civil Judge, Dholpur (for short ‘the trial court’) in civil case No.23/2001, whereby the trial court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. [2025:RJ-JP:20263] (2 of 3) [CSA-358/2009] Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the defendants before the trial court to give her appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III. The defendants filed the written statement and denied the averments of the plaint and stated that the candidature of the plaintiff was rightly rejected, so no ground is made out for appointing the plaintiff on the post of Teacher Grade-III. So, suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- 1- vk;k okni= dh en la- ,d esa of.kZr foKfIr ds Øe esa fu;qfDr gsrq okfn;k }kjk izLrqr vkosnui= izfroknhx.k us xyr rkSj ij [kkfjt fd;k gS\ 2- vk;k okfn;k mDr foKfIr ds Øe esa dksbZ LFkk;h eSfjV fyLV tkjh fd;s tkus rFkk fu;qfDr fn;s tkus ckcr izfroknhx.k dks LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk ls ikcan djkus dh vf/kdkjh gS\ 3- vuqrks"k\ To prove her case, plaintiff got herself examined as PW-1- Muveena Khatun. To prove its case, defendants got examined Dr. Ramesh Pareek as DW1. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 10.02.2006, decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The defendants had preferred an appeal against the impugned judgment dated 10.02.2006 and appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 25.02.2009 setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. [2025:RJ-JP:20263] (3 of 3) [CSA-358/2009] Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that appellate court had committed error in setting aside the decree passed by the trial court. The appellate court had not considered the evidence led by the parities in the right perspective. The plaintiff could not submit the character certificate because she studied from Jamia Urdu Aligarh University as a private student and the said University denied to issue character certificate to the private students. So, judgment passed by the appellate court be set aside and judgment passed by the trial court be restored. Despite service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of the defendants. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the impugned judgments. The appellate court rightly set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and rightly allowed the appeal filed by the defendants. As admittedly the present suit is related to service matter, the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the matter. So, no substantial question of law is made out for admitting the present appeal on the substantial question of law as framed in the memo of appeal. So, the present appeal filed by the plaintiff being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J AVINASH GULERIA /62