JUDGMENT M.P. Singh 1. This is a defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit for declaration that the entire selection for the post of Assistant Inspector of Works (A. I. O. W.) was illegal for non-inclusion of the name of the plaintiff in the selection list. 2. The case set up by the plaintiff was that he was appointed by the defendant as work Mistri on 29-12-1985 at Moradabad. Thereafter he was sent on deputation to the office of the Chief Engineer Construction, Garwa Road, District Palamu (Bihar). After working for some time he was given a chance to work as Assistant inspector of Works vide order dated 21-3-1961. He worked there in that capacity till 30-5-1967. He was reverted thereafter to the post of Mistri grade I and worked at Palamu till 31-12-1968. After expiry of the deputation period he was sent to his parent department, office of Divisional Superintendent, on 1-1-1969 at Moradabad. In the meantime the post of the work Mistri has been designated as Sub- Overseer Mistri Grade I. 3. In January, 1969 when the plaintiff came back to Moradabad, he came to know that in the year 1962 a selection was held for 5 posts of Assistant Inspector of Works and in the year 1968 similar selection took place for 8 posts. The said posts have been filled up. The plaintiff was eligible, to be considered for selection. Non-consideration of his name made the entire selection illegal as he had a right to be considered for the same. 4. The plaintiff was a Jatav by caste. Under rules, 17% of the total vacancy should have been filled up from the reserved quota. At Palamu he was allowed to work as Assistant Inspector of Works from March, 1961 to May, 1967. He was fully qualified to be appointed on the said. Had he not been sent on deputation to Palamu (Bihar), then he would have been definitely considered for the post of Assistant Inspector of Works in 1962 itself. The action of the defendant in not considering him for appointment in 1962 was illegal and the said selection was in breach of the Service Rules. After serving the statutory notice under section 80 CPC dated 21-9-1971 the present suit was filed. 5. The action of the defendant in not considering him for appointment in 1962 was illegal and the said selection was in breach of the Service Rules. After serving the statutory notice under section 80 CPC dated 21-9-1971 the present suit was filed. 5. The defendant contested the suit stating that the plaintiff has acquiesed to his reversion from the post of Assistant Inspector of Works since 1967. He did not object to the said reversion order passed on 30-5-1967. The plaintiff has failed to establish whether there was any vacancy of the post of Assistant Inspector of Works in the Divisional Superintendent Office, Moradabad. The suit was not maintainable. The notice under section 80 CPC was defective. 6. The trial court dismissed the suit only on the ground of limitation but findings on other issues have been recorded in favour of the plaintiff. He held that the plaintiff had the requisite qualifications for selection to the post of Assistant Inspector of Works. He was not called for selection due to the negligence of the officials of the Divisional Superintendent Office, Moradabad. The plaintiff being a candidate of schedule caste was entitled for being called for selection to the post of Assistant Inspector of Works in the year 1962-63. The notice under section 80 CPC was a valid one. There were no laches on the part of the plaintiff The defendant did not file any cross-objection against the findings recorded on other issues by the trial' court. The plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 9-3-1978. 7. The only point to be considered by the lower appellate court was whether the suit for declaration by way of amendment of the plaint was barred by limitation. After considering the effect of the amendment, the appeal has been allowed on 27-8-1979 holding that the suit was within limitation. The plaintiff was entitled to be treated as a selected candidate for the post of Assistant Inspector of Works since 1962. He was also entitled to the arrears of salary seniority, other benefits and amenities with effect from 1962. Against the said judgment and decree the present second appeal has been filed by defendant. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties. He was also entitled to the arrears of salary seniority, other benefits and amenities with effect from 1962. Against the said judgment and decree the present second appeal has been filed by defendant. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The plaintiff came forward with a case that he came to know about the selection made in the year 1962-63 to the post of Assistant Inspector of Works in the first week of January, 1969 when after completing the period of deputation he was sent to his parent department at Moradabad Notice under section 80 CPC was sent on 20-9-1971. This was taken to be the date of cause of action. The period of limitation for filing the suit was three years. The suit was filed on 17-1-1972. Adding the period of two months of statutory notice under section 80 CPC the suit could have been filed by 17-3-1972. 9. Initially it was a suit for temporary injunction but subsequently by means of an amendment relief of declaration was also sought. Nature of the suit remained the same. The application for amendment was filed on 3-8-1977. It was allowed on 29-8-1977. The amendment so allowed will relate back to the date of filing or the suit. Reference may be made to a case Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply Gurgaon, AIR 1969 SC 1267 . 10. The learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the order allowing the amendment application and as such it is not necessary for me to decide whether the order allowing the amendment was correct or not. The constant view of the Supreme Court has been that the power to grant amendment of the pleadings is intended to serve the ends of justice and is not governed by any such narrow or technical limitation. Rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. The Court always gives leave to amend the pleading of a party unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting malafide, or that by his blunder, he had caused injury to his opponent which may not be compensated for by an order of costs. The Court always gives leave to amend the pleading of a party unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting malafide, or that by his blunder, he had caused injury to his opponent which may not be compensated for by an order of costs. However, negligent or careless may have been the first omission and however late the proposed amendment may be, the amendment may be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side. I find support from the judgment of the Supreme Court Haridas Aildas Thadani v. Godrej Ruslom Kermani, AIR 1983 SC 319 . 11. The only contention raised on behalf of the appellant was that the decree of the lower Appellate court is erroneous in the sense that it had no jurisdiction to pass a decree declaring that the plaintiff was a selected candidate for the post of Assistant Inspector of Works since 1962. 1 find sufficient force in the said submission. 12. The form of decree passed by the lower appellate court while allowing the appeal was erroneous. The order of the lower appellate court declaring that the plaintiff was entitled to be treated as selected candidate for the post of Assistant Inspector of Works is not in accordance with law. The matter should have been left open to the appointing authority to consider the case of the plaintiff. Accordingly I allow the appeal without any order as to costs and modify the judgment and decree of the court below to the extent that the plaintiff is entitled to be considered by the defendant for the post of Assistant Inspector of Works The appointing authority will also consider the question of seniority and other benefits due to the plaintiff.