SACHIDANAND DUBEY AND OTHERS Vs. COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, SRI SANT RAM GOSWAMI JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN application for compromise under Order 23 Rule 3 C.P.C. was filed on behalf of the appellants. Another application was also filed by the appellants for deleting the names of the opposite parties No. 3 to 6 from the array of the respondents in the appeal. The compromise application dated 16 -4 -1992 was presented before the Court and thereafter before the Registrar and the parties to the compromise document presented themselves before the Registrar, who had verified the compromise in the presence of the counsel for the parties. The Registrar made a note in the compromise document that the names of respondents No. 3 to 6 are not mentioned nor they joined or signed the compromise. The Registrar directed the compromise document to be placed before the Court. The compromise application was placed before Hon'ble M.P. Singh, J. who directed to decide the appeal in terms of the compromise dated 18.5.1992. Since the respondents No. 3 to 6 had no notice about the compromise application and the application for deleting their names from the array of the parties in the appear an application was moved on behalf of the respondents No. 3 to 6. Hon'ble M.P. Singh, J. was pleased to recall the order dated 18.5.1992 passed by him on the compromise verified on 16.4.1992. The Court was pleased to direct that the appeal be restored to its original number and the appeal be listed for admission before the appropriate Bench.

(2.) THE appeal 'thereafter was not listed for admission before the Court and the matter remained pending. After several applications moved by the appellants' counsel this matter has come up before this Court for consideration of the two applications, namely, the application for deleting the names of respondents No. 3 to 6 from the array of the parties and for appropriate orders on the compromise verified on 16.4.1992.

(3.) THE suit in question was filed by the plaintiffs in 1981 for a relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 3 or defendants No. 1 to 4 from interfering in the plaintiffs' right of working as Assistant Teacher in the institution. The plaintiffs of the suit claimed to have been appointed as Assistant teachers in the institution and their services were governed by the U.P. Recognised Basic School (Junior High School) Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers Rules, 1978. They claimed that there had been no removal or dismissal order with prior approval of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari against them. The plaintiffs claimed to be working as Assistant Teachers in the aforesaid institution but Baleshwar Singh, claiming himself as a de facto manager, has started interfering in the working of the plaintiffs as teachers; hence the suit for permanent injunction was filed.