JUDGMENT Hon. Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Sri L.P. Naithani, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Lalit Tewari for the appellants and Sri Alok Singh, Sr. Advocate assisted by Sri D. Barthwal counsel for the respondent. 2. Present second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 15.5.2001 passed by the District Judge, Dehradun in Civil appeal No. 55 of 2001 arising out of the suit No. 763 of 1998. 3. The Second Appeal was admitted on 16.8.2001 on the following substantial questions of law : 1. Whether the suit is barred by the provisions of section 41(j) and (i) of the Specific Relief Act? 2. Whether the suit by the Union against the appointment of the persons is maintainable in accordance with law? 4. Briefly stated the national Union of O.N.G.C. Employees, Dehradun through its General Secretary has filed a suit for the grant of injunction against the defendants restraining them from recruiting Security Supervisors as direct recruitment without following the provisions of Rule 6 of the Oil & Natural Gas Commission (Recruitment & Promotion) Regulation, 1980 and connected instructions and notifications of defendant dated 28.8.89 bearing No. 12 (215)/89-RP-1 and other connected rules. According to the plaintiff the method of filling the vacant post in the ONGC is by way of direct recruitment or promotion of the employees already in service of the Commission or borrowing the services of person from the Central Government or the State Government or by other method as may be decided by the Commission at the meeting and for the reasons to be recorded in writing for appointment on such post. 5. These methods are contained in Rule 3 of the Recruitment & Promotion Regulations, 1980. Rule 6 is with regard to the filling of vacancies by direct recruitment and a detailed procedure has been laid down for such recruitment. The defendant-appellants have also notified a circular No. 12(215)/89-RP-1 dated 28.8.89 whereby priorities to the direct recruitment has been given as under : (a) Ward of deceased employees (b) Ex apprentices of ONGC (c) Contingent (casual workers) 6. The plaintiff has alleged that the defendant-appellants wanted to recruit one Mrs. The defendant-appellants have also notified a circular No. 12(215)/89-RP-1 dated 28.8.89 whereby priorities to the direct recruitment has been given as under : (a) Ward of deceased employees (b) Ex apprentices of ONGC (c) Contingent (casual workers) 6. The plaintiff has alleged that the defendant-appellants wanted to recruit one Mrs. Kusum Lata Thapa on the pot of Security Supervisor under the political pressure without observing the promotion rules stated above and without permitting any other candidate to apply from Employment Exchange and also without following the rules of priorities provided under circular dated 28.8.1989. 7. The defendant-appellants contested the suit and have filed written statement. The appellants admitted the existence of Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1980 together with Circular no. 12(215)/89-RP-1 dated 28.8.1989. The case of the defendant-appellants is that the recruitment for the post of security Supervisor is being made as per the Recruitment & Promotion Regulations, 1980. Special emphasis has been laid upon Rule 3D, where it has been provided that the Commission was at liberty to recruit any person possessing special merit qualification and experience by adopting any other method as the Commission in its meeting decided for the reasons to be recorded in writing. According to the defendant-appellants the Commission had decided to recruit lady person for the post of Security Supervisor by adopting any other method other than provided under Rule 3A, 3B or 3C and, therefore, they were not required to adhere and follow the requirement of Rule 6 viz-a-viz circular letter dated 28.8.1989. 8. On the basis of pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed in the trial Court. 1. Whether the defendant is making recruitment against Recruitment & Promotion Regulations, 1980? If so, its effect? 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by section 41(j) & (i) of the Specific Relief Act? 3. Whether the plaint of the plaintiff is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. 4. Relief? 9. The plaintiff in support of his case has examined Sri Arvind Chauhan as P.W.1 while the defendants have adduced no evidence. The trial Court has held that the defendants are not making any recruitment against the Recruitment Rules. 3. Whether the plaint of the plaintiff is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. 4. Relief? 9. The plaintiff in support of his case has examined Sri Arvind Chauhan as P.W.1 while the defendants have adduced no evidence. The trial Court has held that the defendants are not making any recruitment against the Recruitment Rules. The suit is barred under the provisions of Order 41(j) & (i) and the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. Against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court First appeal has been preferred before the District Judge, Haridwar. 10. After hearing both the parties the District Judge has held that the defendant-appellants were at liberty to make recruitment for the post of Security Supervisors in accordance with Rule 3D of Recruitment & Promotion Rules 1980. Rule 3D is an exception to the general rule of appointment and is restricted for the persons possessing special merit, qualifications or experience. The post of lady security supervisor does not possess special qualifications or experience and, therefore, there were no special circumstances which attracts the provisions of Rule 3D. According to the appellate Court the trial Court has committed illegality in recording findings on issue no. 1. 11. The first appellate Court has further observed that the defendant Commission had not followed the general principle governing the appointments. Plaintiff Union is a recognized Union which looks after the general interest of the staff of ONGC. Since circular letter dated 28.8.89 provides for priorities in the matter of appointment specially for the ward of deceased employees, contingent casual worker and Ex apprentices of ONGC. The interest, therefore, was to be looked after by the Trade Union who happened to be the plaintiff-respondent. The first appellate court has, therefore, held that the plaintiff had a locus standi to file the suit. 12. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed. The appellant-defendants were restrained from recruiting security supervisor as direct recruitment without following the procedure contained in rule 6 of Oil & Natural Gas Commission (Recruitment & Promotion, Regulations 1980) and connecting instructions and notification bearing No. 12(215)/89-RP-1 dated 28.8.89. 13. Feeling aggrieved the present second appeal has been filed by the Oil and Natural Gas Commission. 14. The appellant-defendants were restrained from recruiting security supervisor as direct recruitment without following the procedure contained in rule 6 of Oil & Natural Gas Commission (Recruitment & Promotion, Regulations 1980) and connecting instructions and notification bearing No. 12(215)/89-RP-1 dated 28.8.89. 13. Feeling aggrieved the present second appeal has been filed by the Oil and Natural Gas Commission. 14. The first substantial question of law for consideration before this Court is that whether the suit is barred under section 41(j) and (i) of the Specific Relief Act. Another substantial question of law is that whether the suit by a Union against the appointment is maintainable. 15. Section 41 (j) & (i) reads as under : 41. Injunction when refused. An injunction cannot be granted. (i) When the conduct of the plaintiff or his agents has been such as to disentitle him to the assistance of the court; (j) When the plaintiff has no personals interest in the matter. 16. Plaintiff Union is a recognized Union by the appellants themselves. The plaintiff Union looks after the general interest of the entire staff of ONGC, therefore, the interest of the members of the Union is the personal interest of the Union as a registered body. Since circular letter dated 28.8.89 provies for priorities in the matter of appointment specially for the ward of deceased employees, ex apprentices of ONGC and contingent casual workers. Therefore, their interest was to be looked after by the Trade Union who happened to be the plaintiff. The breach of conditions contained in circular letter dated 28.8.89, shall amount to the breach of personal right of the trade union who happened to be plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff had a locus standi to file the present suit. Thus the suit is not barred by the provisions of Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act. 17. It is immaterial that none of the person had come forward to complain about breach of his personal rights by the alleged appointment made by the O.N.G.C. As stated above, applications were not invited according to rules, therefore, there was no occasion for applying for appointment by other persons does not arise. In the present case the appellants did not comply the rules framed and general principles and appointment therefore, the suit by the Trade Union is maintainable. 18. In the present case the appellants did not comply the rules framed and general principles and appointment therefore, the suit by the Trade Union is maintainable. 18. Both the substantial questions of law are decided in favour of the respondent and against the appellants. 19. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court and it was decreed by the first appellate Court and there was no interim injunction granted by any Court. In these circumstances any recruitment made by the appellants in the interest of the institution, will not come in the way of the appellants by the decree passed by the first appellate court. Consequently, the second appeal is dismissed with costs.