COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT BALIKA UCHCHATAR MADHYAMIK VIDYALAYA Vs. VIIITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE DEORIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The opposite party Nos. 6 to 13 had filed Original Suit No. 55 of 1995 for certain reliefs with regard to their employment as teacher and peon respectively in the concerned school which Is not included in the grant-in-aid scheme of the Government. In connection with the said suit, an application for injunction was filed. The trial court by an order dated 8th May, 1995 had passed an order of Injunction restraining the petitioners from Interfering with the services of the plaintiffs and also to pay their salary regularly and from appointing any other person in the place and stead of the plaintiffs. An appeal was preferred by the Manager of the Committee of the school describing himself by his personal name and the Principal who was also described in her personal name. The said appeal has since been dismissed against which this writ petition has been moved.

(2.) On the prayer of Mr. Rajeev Mfsra, learned counsel for the applicants, this petition has since been permitted to be converted into one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Mr. Misra had contended that the relief that has been sought for in the suit cannot be maintained in a civil court in view of the provision contained in Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act read with Section 41 of the said Act.

(3.) Dr. Padia on the other hand contended that this question cannot be gone into at this stage in Connection with the determination of the question of grant of injunction. He then contended that even If this question Is raised, still then a suit is very much maintainable. In as much as it is not a suit seeking relief of reinstatement. It is only a suit relating to the prayer for injunction restraining the respondents from Interfering with their services and for payment of salaries. According to him, so far as the payment of salary is concerned, a civil suit is very much maintainable and the other prayers are consequential relief which does not determine the character of the relief sought for. He further contends that a prima-facie case has been made out and both the Courts were justified in granting relief In the form of injunction during the pendency of the suit subject to final decision.