Dr. Shobha Chaudhary vs Maharshi Dayanand University

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.—This Civil Revision is filed against the order of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division Rohtak, dated October 9, 1996, rejecting the permission to the plaintiff-petitioner to produce certain documents.

The petitioner filed a suit against the Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak, for an injunction restraining the University not to terminate the services of the plaintiff. In that suit, the plaintiff sought to file nine documents and exhibit them in the suit. The learned Civil Judge allowed the application in regard to the documents at serial Nos.4 and 7 to 9 but rejected the production of the documents at serial Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 6 on the ground that the defendant has a right to claim privilege in respect of these documents.

The petitioner is not seeking any direction to the defendant-University to produce the documents. The plaintiff claims that she has been in possession of these documents and the same may be admitted in evidence as secondary evidence. The documents whose production was not permitted by the Court are as under :-

Recommendations made by the Head of the Department of Economics dated 28.8.1982;

Recommendations made by the Head of the Department of Economics dated 11.12.1992.

Copy of the resolution passed by the departmental committee of the Department of Economics dated 11.11.1991.

Order passed by the Vice-Chancellor on the basis of which letter dated 16.12.1992 was issued.

Recommendations of the Head of the Department of Economics dated 3.2.1993.

In respect of these documents, the University claimed privilege on the ground that these are the privileged documents being the notings, minutes made by the officers, the opinions expressed or reports and gist of official decision reached in the course of determination of the matter. When these documents arc in the possession and custody of the plaintiff and when the plaintiff wants to produce them, there is no question of the University claiming privilege. u/s 123 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. no one shall be permitted to give any evidence derived from unpublished official records relating to any affairs of the State except with the permission of the officer at the head of the department concerned, who shall give or withhold such permission as he thinks fit. u/s 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, "No public officer shall be compelled to disclose communication made to him in official confidence when he considers that the public interests would suffer by disclosure." In the instant case, neither of the provisions will apply. The documents have already been published and produced before this Court in an earlier revision petition. Therefore, these are no more confidential or secret. When the petitioner obtained copies of the documents, she can prove the same and also adduce evidence in regard to the contents thereof in view of the provisions contained in Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

I, therefore, allow this Civil Revision Petition and direct the trial Court to permit the plaintiff-petitioner to file the copies of the documents and adduce secondary evidence as to the contents of the same.