LOK KALYAN SAMITI Vs. RAJENDRA PRASAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 21-8-1971 passed by the District Judge, Azamgarh.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this appeal are that the defendant-appellant runs a school known as Maharajgunj Higher Secondary School at Maharjajgunj in the district of Azamgarh. The administration of the school is run in accordance with the Scheme of Administration approved by the Education Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh. The administration is run by a Managing Committee through a duly elected manager. In suit No. 96 of 1968 the Munsif Havil, Azamgarh, had appointed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sagri, as Receiver of the School to manage its affairs. The plaintiff-respondent was working as a Lecturer in History in the said institution since 1958 and was a member of the permanent staff. On 25-9-1959, i. e. at the time of his appointment there was an agreement between him and the Committee of Management incorporating terms of his service. This agreement is Ex. 1. For certain reasons the plaintiff did not want to continue in service of the said institution and on 8-3-1970 gave a notice (Ex. A4) to the Committee of Management, praying that he may be relieved by the expiry 6i the period contemplated by Para 10 of Appendix V of the Education Code. The notice given by the plaintiff-respondent was to become effective from 8-7-70. On 25-3-1970 the Receiver accepted the resignation and ordered that the respondent may be relieved from his post on 8-7-1970. On 23-4-1970 the plaintiff-respondent wrote an application (Ex. A-7) to the Committee of Management withdrawing his resignation dated 8-3-1970. It is said to have been received in the office of the Acting Principal of the School on 11-5-1970 and was rejected by the Receiver on 15-6-1970. On 7-7-1970 the plaintiff again requested the Committee of Management to permit him to continue as a Lecturer but his request was turned down. He, therefore, filed that suit for declaration that the order dated 25-3-1970 terminating his services was null and void and he continued to be a Lecturer in the Histosy Department of the institution. He also claimed injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from preventing him from working in the said capacity. The validity of the order dated 25-3-1970 was impugned on the following grounds:

(3.) The defendant-appellant contested that suit inter alia, on the grounds that the notice given by the plaintiff amounted to an unconditional resignation which became effective forthwith and the plaintiff bad no right to withdraw it; that the Receiver alone was competent to accept the resignation and it was not necessary to obtain approval of the District Inspector of Schools. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff being a servant could not compel his master to take work from him. The usual pleas of non-joinder of necessary parties, improper valuation of the suit and deficiency in court-fees were also raised.