PRINCIPAL Vs. J MARY SUSHEELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Datar for Shri Srinivasa Anand for the appellant and Sri Vijay for Respondent-1 and Shri Jagannatha Rao for Respondent-2 submitted that the appeal itself may be heard finally on merits. Accordingly, the appeal is heard on merits.

(2.) This is an appeal by defendant 2 against the order dated 9-7-1985 passed by the X Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in Original Suit No. 10456 of 1985 allowing I.A. No. 1 and dismissing I.A.No. III and making the temporary injunction absolute.

(3.) The plaintiff's case is as under : Defendant-1 is the Management of the Goodwill Girls' High School and defendant-2 is the Principal of the said School. The said High School is an aided institution and is receiving grant from the Government. This is an institution run by the Church of South India, Karnataka Central Diocese. In pursuance of the advertisement calling for applications for the post of Assistant Teacher for Mathematics, the plaintiff also had applied. She was interviewed by the Committee and was orally informed by the Chairman of the Committee that she had bean selected. On the basis of that oral communication, the plaintiff filed a suit earlier against defendant-1 praying that she may be appointed as a Teacher in the School. Although defendant-1 supported the plaintiff's case, still the suit was dismissed on the ground that there was no order of appointment in writing issued by the management in favour of the plaintiff. However, certain observations were made in that case bearing in mind the interest of the students studying in the School. Defendant-1 Management subsequently issued an order dated 6-6-1985 appointing the plaintiff as an Assistant Teacher. After the receipt of the said order, the plaintiff reported for duty before defendant-2 on 19-6-1985. Defendant-2 instead of assigning the work to the plaintiff, has issued a letter stating as : "Since I have requested the Chairman for the copy of the Court order which be has mentioned in his letter dated 6th June and delivered by hand on 10th June at 10-30 A.M. you will kindly wait till then, so that I can read the same and take necessary action." Even thereafter, defendant-2 did not assign any work to her. Hence the suit fur declaration and injunction