JUDGMENT : - P.S. Rana, Judge. Judgment:-Present appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree passed by learned District Judge Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No 10 of 2008 decided on dated 20.10.2008 titled Kamal Dev vs. The Director Ayurveda Kasumpti. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Kamal Dev filed a suit for mandatory and permanent prohibitory injunction pleading therein that plaintiff is resident of village Baddu P.O. Chharol Tehsil Sadar District Bilaspur H.P. It is pleaded that plaintiff is unemployed youth and is matriculate and belongs to IRDP family. It is pleaded that District Ayurveda Officer Bilaspur H.P. as well as other Medical Officers promised to engage the plaintiff as Class IV employee if father of the plaintiff would donate 10 biswas of land in village Baddu P.O. Chharol Tehsil Sadar District Bilaspur for construction of dispensary. It is further pleaded that on the promise of Superior Ayurvedic Medical Officers father of the plaintiff with assurance to adjust his son Kamal Dev plaintiff donated the land measuring 0-10 bighas comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 6/6 Khasra No. 64 situated in village Baddu Tehsil Sadar District Bilaspur H.P. on dated 20.12.1997 in favour of Ayurvedic Hospital and mutation was attested in favour of Ayurvedic Department. It is further pleaded that thereafter father of the plaintiff requested the Ayurvedic Department to appoint the plaintiff as Class IV employee as per their promise. It is also pleaded that Ayurvedic Department vide letter No. Ayur-BLP/PTS/2001-Vol-III-2376 dated 30.7.2004 also recommended the case of plaintiff to defendant No. 1 for appointment but defendants did not appoint the plaintiff as Class IV employee. It is further pleaded that plaintiff also served a notice under Section 80 CPC through Advocate but despite notice defendant did not reply to the notice in order to engage the plaintiff as Class IV employee. It is further pleaded that plaintiff is legally entitled for decree of mandatory and prohibitory injunction. Prayer for decree of suit as mentioned in relief clause sought. 3. Per contra written statement filed on behalf of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 pleaded therein that suit is not maintainable. It is further pleaded that plaintiff has no cause of action and suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction. Prayer for decree of suit as mentioned in relief clause sought. 3. Per contra written statement filed on behalf of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 pleaded therein that suit is not maintainable. It is further pleaded that plaintiff has no cause of action and suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction. It is also pleaded that plaintiff has not come to Court with clean hands and concealed the material facts from the Court. It is also pleaded that Court has no jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the suit. It is further pleaded that suit is bad for non compliance of mandatory provision of Section 80 CPC. It is pleaded that father of plaintiff has voluntarily donated the land in village Baddu Tehsil Sadar District Bilaspur H.P. in presence of marginal witnesses without any consideration on dated 20.12.1997 by way of registered gift deed registered before the Sub Registrar. It is further pleaded that application of the plaintiff was received in the office and on dated 30.7.2004 the same was forwarded to the Director of Ayurveda. Prayer for dismissal of suit sought. 4. Plaintiff filed replication and re-asserted the allegations as pleaded in the plaint. On the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by learned trial Court on dated 4.11.2005:- 1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for relief of mandatory injunction as alleged? OPP 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for relief of permanent injunction as alleged? OPP 3. Whether suit is not maintainable? OPD 4. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD 5. Whether suit has not been properly valued? …..OPD 6. Whether plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands? OPD 7. Whether there exists no relationship between the landlord and tenant? OPD 8. Whether Court has no jurisdiction? OPD 9. Whether the suit is bad for non-compliance of mandatory provision of Section 80 CPC? OPD 10. Relief. 5. Findings of learned trial Court on issue Nos. 1 and 2 were in negative, findings of learned trial Court on issue Nos. 3 and 7 were in affirmative and learned trial Court on issue Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 were in negative. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by plaintiff. 6. OPD 10. Relief. 5. Findings of learned trial Court on issue Nos. 1 and 2 were in negative, findings of learned trial Court on issue Nos. 3 and 7 were in affirmative and learned trial Court on issue Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 were in negative. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by plaintiff. 6. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court plaintiff filed appeal before learned District Judge Bilaspur registered as Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2008 titled Kamal Dev vs. The Director Ayurveda Kasumpti-9 and others and learned District Judge Bilaspur disposed of the appeal on dated 20.10.2008 and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court. 7. Feeling aggrieved against the judgments and decree passed by learned trial Court and affirmed by learned first Appellate Court appellant filed present Regular Second Appeal. 8. Following oral evidence adduced by parties:- Sr. No. Name of the witness PW1 Kamal Dev PW2 Dhani Ram PW3 Hari Ram DW1 Nand Lal DW2 Ashwani Kumar 8.1 Following documentary evidence was adduced by parties:- Sr. No. Description Ext. P1 Copy of application for the post of peon Ext.P2 Copy of the certificate of matriculation Ext.P3 Jamabandi for the year 1996-97 Ext.P4 Copy of notice under Section 80 CPC Ext.D1 Copy of Gift deed. 9. Hon’ble High Court of H.P. admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law on dated 26.3.2009:- 1. Whether judgment and decree are due to misread and misrepresentation of oral as well as documentary evidence on the record more particularly Ext.P1 and Ext.D1? 2. Whether the defendants were right in denying Class-IV appointment to the appellant despite the fact that the land was taken for construction of dispensary free of cost? 10. Court has heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant and Court has also heard learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent. Court has also perused the entire record carefully. Oral evidence adduced by the parties 11.1 PW1 Kamal Dev has stated that he had qualified 10th class examination and belongs to IRDP family. He has stated that in the year 1996 Ayurvedic officials came in village and requested to donate the immovable land for construction of Ayurvedic dispensary. He has stated that Ayurvedic officials assured that they would employ plaintiff as Class-IV employee in Ayurvedic department. He has stated that in the year 1996 Ayurvedic officials came in village and requested to donate the immovable land for construction of Ayurvedic dispensary. He has stated that Ayurvedic officials assured that they would employ plaintiff as Class-IV employee in Ayurvedic department. He has stated that he requested his father to donate the land. He has further stated that his father told that he would donate the land but share of land would be deducted from the share of plaintiff. He has stated that thereafter 10 biswas of land for construction of Ayurvedic dispensary was donated. He has further stated despite donation of 10 biswas of land in favour of Ayurvedic department for construction of Ayurvedic dispensary plaintiff was not employed as Class IV employee. He has stated that he requested the defendants several times to comply with oral assurance but despite request defendant did not employ him as Class IV employee. He has further stated that thereafter notice under Section 80 CPC was given and he tendered in evidence documents Ext.P1 and Ext.P2 and also tendered jamabandi for the year 1996-97 Ext.P3. He has admitted that his father had donated the land for construction of Ayurvedic dispensary without any consideration. He has admitted that gift deed was registered in office of Sub Registrar. He has also admitted that no official of Ayurvedic department had assured him in written manner for grant of Class IV post in the Ayurvedic department. Self stated that oral assurance was given to his father. He has stated that he could not disclose the name of officials who had assured for grant of Class IV post in Ayurvedic department. He has denied suggestion that he has filed false present suit in order to acquire post in Ayurvedic department. 11.2 PW2 Dhani Ram has stated that plaintiff Kamal Dev is his son. He has stated that his son has qualified 10th class. He has stated that about ten years ago Ayurveda Doctor came in village and later on Ram Lal Thakur Minister also came. He has stated that Pardhan of Gram Panchayat, residents of village and Ram Lal Thakur Minister assured that they would employ the plaintiff as Class IV employee in Ayurvedic department if he would donate 10 biswas of land in favour of Ayurvedic department. He has stated that he executed the gift deed in favour of Ayurvedic department. He has stated that Pardhan of Gram Panchayat, residents of village and Ram Lal Thakur Minister assured that they would employ the plaintiff as Class IV employee in Ayurvedic department if he would donate 10 biswas of land in favour of Ayurvedic department. He has stated that he executed the gift deed in favour of Ayurvedic department. He has further stated that plaintiff was not employed in Ayurvedic department as Class IV employee despite assurance given by the officials of the Ayurvedic department. He has stated that Ram Lal Minister told to alienate 10 biswas of land. He has further stated that Ram Lal Thakur Minister also told that thereafter plaintiff would be employed in Ayurvedic dispensary as Class IV employee. He has admitted that no written agreement was executed qua appointment of his son. He has stated that he had executed gift deed in favour of Ayurvedic department and further stated that he did not receive any consideration amount. He has admitted that gift deed was executed and same was presented before the Sub Registrar and copy of gift deed is Ext.D1. He has further admitted that contents of Ext.D1 were read over to him and he had admitted the contents of gift deed as correct and thereafter marked his thumb impression. He has denied suggestion that no assurance was given to him for employment to his son in Ayurvedic department. He has denied suggestion that he has gifted the land to Ayurvedic department voluntarily without any assurance from defendants. 11.3 PW3 Hari Ram has stated that plaintiff is known to him. He has stated that father of plaintiff namely Dhani Ram has donated 10 biswas of land in favour of Ayurvedic department for the construction of Ayurvedic dispensary. He has stated that officials of Ayurvedic department told that they would employ the son of donor in Ayurvedic department in case PW2 would execute gift deed in favour of Ayurvedic Department. He has stated that Ayurvedic department did not employ the son of donor as Class IV employee in the Ayurvedic department. He has denied suggestion that he was not present at the spot. He has denied suggestion that medical doctor did not assure PW2 that his son would be employed in Ayurvedic department as Class IV employee. 12.1. DW1 Nand Lal has stated that he was retired from the post of District Ayurvedic Officer on dated 31.12.1997. He has denied suggestion that he was not present at the spot. He has denied suggestion that medical doctor did not assure PW2 that his son would be employed in Ayurvedic department as Class IV employee. 12.1. DW1 Nand Lal has stated that he was retired from the post of District Ayurvedic Officer on dated 31.12.1997. He has stated that Ayurvedic dispensary was opened at village Baddu. He has stated that Panchayat is responsible to provide land for construction of Ayurvedic dispensary without any consideration. He has stated that Dhani Ram had donated 10 biswas of land in favour of Ayurvedic department on dated 20.12.1997. He has stated that no assurance was given on behalf of officials of Ayurvedic department that they would give employment to the son of donor. He has stated that land was given for construction of dispensary voluntarily by the donor. 12.2 DW2 Ashwani Kumar has stated that he was posted as Ayurvedic doctor at Baddu w.e.f. 1998 to 2002. He has stated that on dated 20.12.1997 father of plaintiff voluntarily executed gift deed in favour of Ayurvedic department for construction of Ayurvedic dispensary. He has stated that no assurance was given by Ayurvedic department to the effect that Ayurvedic department would employ son of donor as Class IV employee. Findings on substantial question of law Point No. 1 13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that learned trial Court and learned first Appellate Court have misread the oral and documentary evidence adduced by parties more particularly Ext.P1 and Ext.D1 is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has carefully perused documents Ext.P1 and Ext.D1 placed on record. Document Ext.P1 relates to application filed by plaintiff Kamal Dev to District Ayurveda Officer Bilaspur H.P. which was received vide dairy No. 2121 dated 30.7.2004 in the office of District Ayurveda Officer Bilaspur. In document Ext.P1 placed on record Kamal Dev plaintiff had requested for appointment as Class IV employee on ground that he and his father were orally assured to give the employment to plaintiff as Class IV employee in Ayurvedic department when gift deed was executed by father of Kamal Dev plaintiff in favour of Ayurvedic department for construction of Ayurvedic dispensary. Court is of the opinion that application Ext.P1 for employment of plaintiff to the post of Class IV employee is not helpful to the plaintiff because oral agreement qua employment of plaintiff in Ayurvedic department is void agreement as per Section 24 of the Indian Contract Act 1872. It is proved on record that plaintiff has sought appointment for the post of peon in Ayurvedic department on oral assurance. It is proved on record that Ayurvedic department is the State department and it is well settled law that any appointment in State departments should be strictly as per The Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act 1959. It is well settled law that in public department all appointments should be done in the following manner: (1) Advertisement of the vacancy. (2) Constitution of Recruitment Committee. (3) Recommendations of the Recruitment Committee on merits. It is well settled law that appointment in the public department upon the post of direct entry should be enrouted through above procedure. Court is of the opinion that any oral assurance for appointment of the plaintiff to the post of Class IV employee in the Ayurvedic department without following the statutory procedure is void assurance as per Section 24 of Indian Contract Act 1872 and could not be enforced in a Court of law. 14. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that in view of the fact that father of the appellant had donated the land in favour of Ayurvedic department without any consideration on the assurance of employment to his son appeal be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has carefully perused gift deed Ext.D1 placed on record. Gift deed Ext.D1 is not conditional gift deed. There is no condition in gift deed Ext.D1 that Ayurvedic department would give employment to the son of donor. Hence it is held that in absence of any condition in gift deed document Ext.D1 is not helpful to the plaintiff. Hence point No. 1 of substantial question of law is decided against the appellant. Findings on substantial question of law Point No. 2 15. Hence it is held that in absence of any condition in gift deed document Ext.D1 is not helpful to the plaintiff. Hence point No. 1 of substantial question of law is decided against the appellant. Findings on substantial question of law Point No. 2 15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that defendants were not legally competent to deny Class IV appointment to the appellant in view of the fact that land of father of appellant was took for construction of Ayurvedic dispensary without any consideration is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. There is recital in gift deed Ext.D1 that donor had executed the gift deed in favour of Ayurvedic department voluntarily on dated 20.12.1997. Gift deed was presented for registration before the Sub Registrar and Sub Registrar Bilaspur has given the certificate that contents of gift deed were explained to the donor by the Sub Registrar. The Sub Registrar has also given certificate that donor had admitted the contents of the gift deed as correct before him. It is held that gift deed was executed by the donor in favour of Ayurvedic department voluntarily in sound disposing state of mind. It is also well settled law that gift deed is always executed without consideration amount. Gift deed is not conditional gift deed and title is passed in favour of the vendee on the date when the gift deed was executed and registered before the Sub Registrar. (See AIR 1961 SC 1747 (Full Bench) titled Ram Saran La and others vs. Mst. Domini Kuer and others). In present case it is proved on record that document of gift deed was executed in favour of donee voluntarily by the owner in free disposing state of mind. 16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that in view of testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW3 and in pursuant to the promise appeal be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court is of the opinion that any agreement or any promise qua appointment to the public post which is contrary to statutory appointment of Law and Rules could not be enforced in a Court of law. It is well settled law that any agreement oral or written which is contrary to law also cannot be enforced in the Court. 17. Court is of the opinion that any agreement or any promise qua appointment to the public post which is contrary to statutory appointment of Law and Rules could not be enforced in a Court of law. It is well settled law that any agreement oral or written which is contrary to law also cannot be enforced in the Court. 17. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that department of Ayurveda had issued a notification No. Ayurveda-Kha(2)-3/98 dated 1.2.1999 in which it has been provided that family who donate the land for construction of dispensary in village free of cost one person from such family would be employed in the government employment as Class IV employee and on this ground appeal be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Plaintiff did not place on record notification No. Ayurveda-Kha(2)-3/98 dated 1.2.1999. Court is of the opinion that any notification which is contrary to the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act 1959 qua public post could not be enforced in a Court of law in the interest of general public. It was held in case reported in AIR1987SC1227 titled Union of India and others vs. N. Hargopal and others that Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act 1959 is applicable to Government establishments. Office of defendants is public office and is government established. Hence substantial question of law point No. 2 framed by Hon’ble High Court is decided against the appellant. 18. In view of above stated facts judgments and decree passed by learned trial Court and affirmed by learned first Appellate Court are affirmed. Regular Second Appeal filed by appellant is dismissed with no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications also stand disposed of.