Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is one for declaration that the plaintiff shall be deemed to be in service in the school belonging to the first defendant and managed by the second defendant continuously from 20th January, 1954 and for consequential mandatory injunction directing the second defendant to cancel the entries dated 13th November, 1971 and 13th November, 1971 made in the Service Register of the plaintiff regarding the alleged suspension and dismissal from service and to reinstate the plaintiff as Headmaster in the first defendant's school within Conoor Range and also for payment of Rs. 27,691.73 with interest at six per cent per annum from the date of suit till payment.

5. Mr. V. Krishnan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, after conceding that the plaintiff cannot ask for reinstatement in service as Headmaster in view of the decision reported in Vaish Degree College Vs. Lakshmi Narain (supra) contended that the prayer for a declaration that the plaintiff is deemed to be in service is maintainable and that the further prayer for consequential mandatory injunction directing the second defendant to cancel the entries dated 13th August, 1971 and 13th November, 1971 at page 18 and 19 of the plaintiff's Service Register regarding the alleged suspension and dismissal from service, is also maintainable. The learned Counsel further submitted that unless the slur in the Service Register of the plaintiff regarding suspension and dismissal is removed, it will be very difficult for the plaintiff to get job in any other institution. In effect, Mr. V. Krishnan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff submitted that the first prayer in the plaint has to be taken as questioning the validity of the order of suspension and dismissal. In this line, Mr. V. Krishnan submitted that the prayer for payment of Rs. 27,691.73, being the arrears of salary as if the plaintiff has to be deemed to be in service, can be asked for. According to Mr. V. Krishnan, the first prayer in the plaint, "Plaintiff is deemed to be in service", which means "as if the plaintiff is in service" will not amount to specifically enforcing the right to be reinstated. As regards the question of limitation, the learned Counsel submitted that the plaintiff came to know of the entry in the Service Register only on 23rd March, 1976 and as such, the suit is well within time since Article 113 of the Limitation Act is applicable to the facts of the present case.

(a) For a declaration that the plaintiff is deemed to be in service in the schools belonging to the first defendant managed by the second defendant from 20th January, 1954 continuously without any break.

(b) for a consequential mandatory injunction directing the second defendant to cancel the entries dated 13th August, 1971 and 13th November, 1971 at pages 18 and 19 of the plaintiff's Service Register regarding the alleged suspension and dismissal of the plaintiff from service and to reinstate the plaintiff as Headmaster in the first defendant's schools in Coonoor Range forthwith.