SILCHAR COLLEGIATE SCHOOL Vs. SHANTA DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. N. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned Counsel, for the respondent.

(2.) Aggrieved by an order, passed by the Silchar Collegiate School, i.e., the petitioner No. 1 herein, and the authorities of the said school, suspending the respondent's service, while she was working as a teacher, in the said school, the respondent instituted Title Suit No. 32/2009, wherein she sought for, inter alia, relief of a decree declaring that her suspension was illegal. The ground on which such a challenge was posed to the order of suspension is not necessary to be discussed in this case. What is, however, important to note is that in her suit, the respondent also made an application, under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking temporary injunction restraining the principal defendants from further proceeding with the charge sheet, dated 2.4.2008, and letter of defendant No. 2. dated 20.11.2008, in making enquiry against the plaintiff-petitioner on the basis of reports of the defendant-opposite party No. 3, namely, the Assistant Head Master, Smt. Manjula Kar, Asstt. Teacher or otherwise, till final dispose of the suit. This application gave rise to Misc. (J) Case No. 39/2009. After institution of the suit, the respondent's service was terminated by an order, passed by the school authorities, on 10.3.2009.

(3.) The learned trial court, having taken the view that service of the respondent had been terminated after she had already instituted the suit and challenged the suspension order, the order of termination needs to be set at naught. The learned trial court accordingly passed an order, on 12.5.2009, directing the petitioners herein, who were defendants in the suit, to restore status quo ante as on the date of institution of the suit, i.e., on 17.2.2009, till final disposal of the suit. The order, dated 12.5.2009, thus, amounted to restoring the service of the petitioner and treating her services as unbroken notwithstanding the order of termination of her services. The order, dated 12.5.2009, so passed by the learned trial court, was challenged by the present petitioners by way of an appeal, which gave rise to Misc. Appeal No. 14/2009. By the order, dated 20.10.2009, the learned Civil Judge No. 1, Cachar, Silchar, has dismissed the appeal on the ground that the suit was instituted on 17.2.2009, summons were received by the defendants on 5.3.2009 and despite the fact that they had knowledge of the pendency of the suit, they terminated the service of the plaintiff on 10.3.2009. The order, passed by the learned appellate Court, on 20.10.2009, as well as the order, dated 12.5.2009, passed by the learned trial court stand impugned in this revision.