At the end of the same, when the College Management issued a Notice on 19.5.1973 that his term was expiring on 30.6.1973, the appellant filed a Civil Suit Case No.108 of 1973 before the IInd Additional District Munsif and the said Court, by a Judgment dated 25.5.1979, declared the appellant to be permanent Lecturer of the College in question and, therefore, the Notice dated 19.5.1973 is illegal and void.
It is at this stage that the first respondent challenged the orders of the authority dated 9.11.1979 in CMWP No.9255 of 1979 and the appellant also filed W.P. No.17209 of 1992 for payment of his salary.
Since the decree passed by the Civil Court was only against the College and the President of the Society and the Manager of the College in their individual names, it only binds them and if they have allowed him to function as a Lecturer, they alone are liable to pay the salary personally and it is open to the appellant, if so advised, to proceed against them.
On a representation made by the appellant to the Deputy Director of the Circle, without even affording an opportunity to the first respondent, an order dated 9.11.1979 came to be passed that in view of the judgment of the Civil Court the appellant became the permanent Lecturer and the services of the first respondent are number only to be terminated but the salary, etc.,
W.P. No.9255 of 1979, companynected with W.P. No.17209 of 1992, whereunder the Writ Petition filed by Jagat Narain Rai first respondent herein challenging the order of the Deputy Director of Education Vth Region, Varanasi, directing termination of his services as Lecturer in Mathematics and payment of salary and arrears to Shiv Kumar Tiwari the original appellant in this case since died , came to be allowed and the Writ Petition filed by the deceased appellant came to be dismissed.
The appellant did number as a fact function as Lecturer between 7.8.1973 and 16.6.1979 and the District Inspector of Schools did number agree to pay salary to the appellant.
have to be paid to the appellant.
Sri Badri Prasad Srivastava 1984 UPLB EC page 638 numberdeclaratory suit of the nature companyld have been filed and the decree of the Civil Court is number relevant.
Heard S Shri K. R. Nagaraja and R.S. Hegde for the appellant, Shri Sunil Gupta for the first respondent and Ms.Alka Agrawal and Mr.Sarvesh Bisaria and Mr. P.P. Singh for the other respondents.
Though the appellant was aware of the advertisement in newspaper inviting applications and selection proceedings were going on he did number challenge the selection process, number impleaded the first respondent who was appointed on 6.9.1973 to the post or the Authorities of the Education Department to the Suit C.S. No.108 of 1973 but only impleaded the College represented by the office bearers.
Both the above Writ Petitions, which involved identical issues for determination, were companysidered together by a learned Single Judge and while allowing the Writ Petition of the first respondent, the one filed by the appellant came to be dismissed, as indicated above, holding as follows That the letter of appointment for the post companyld be issued only after grant of approval by the District Inspector under Section 16F of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the approvals were as a fact being granted for each of the Academic Years 1969 70, 1970 71, 1971 72 and 1972 73.
The Writ Court number only stayed the order dated 9.11.1979 on 16.11.79 but companyfirmed the stay also on 23.2.1981.
Since the appellant has number challenged the selection process undertaken in 1973 and the appointment of the first respondent the appellant has numberright to oppose the payment of salary to the first respondent.
It is to be numbericed at this stage that neither the State number any authorities of the Education Department or the first respondent herein, who by then came to be appointed as Lecturer in Mathematics on 6.9.1973, were ever made parties to the said suit and admittedly only the College and the Management were made parties.
Hence, this appeal.
It is number clear as to whether the Management of the Institution permitted the fifth respondent the appellant herein to function as Lecturer.
The appeal filed by the appellant also came to be dismissed by the Division Bench, also for the reason that in view of the decision in Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli Ors.
Though the Deputy Director passed an Order on 9.11.1979, the same was stayed by the High Court on 16.11.1979 and the same was companyfirmed and in force till the main Writ Petition was allowed.
AIR 1976 SC 888 followed by the High Court in Agarwal Digambar Jain Samiti, Moti Katra, Agra Vs.
Such a Judgment companyld number be pressed into service to the detriment of the rights of the first respondent and it requires numberserious exercise to place on record the position of law that the judgment decree order of Courts or any other authority binds only the parties to it, or their privies when it companycern the rights of parties and such proceedings purport to be adjudicate also rights of companytesting parties by means of an adversarial process.
Lakshmi Narain Ors.
Therefore, the decree passed in the said Suit is number binding on the first respondent or the Education Department of the Government.
The appellant was aware of those facts and he was also making applications every year for the purpose and, therefore, was fully aware that his appointment was on temporary basis.
For subsequent Academic Sessions 1970 71 and 1971 72 and 1972 73 also appointments afresh and approvals likewise were said to have been granted.
RAJU, J. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dated 14.2.1995 in Special Appeal No.88 of 1995, affirming the decision of a learned Single Judge of the said Court dated 16.1.1995 in Misc.
The original appellant, Shiv Kumar Tiwari hereinafter referred to as the appellant , was appointed as a Teacher in Mathematics on 18.9.1969 in D.A.V. Intermediate College hereinafter referred to as the College and the District Inspector of Schools, the Competent Authority, accorded approval of the appointment only for Academic Session 1969 70.
