VINOD SHRIVASTAVA Vs. LAXMINARAIN SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge in First Appeal No. 17/90 on 23 -1 -1991 reversing the judgment and decree passed in her favour by Third Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Morena in Civil Suit No. 203 -A/85, on 30 -3 -1990.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal in brief are that the appellant was employed as a teacher in a school run by the society of which respondent No.1 was the Secretary. The respondent No.2 was the Head Master and respondent No.3 was the Principal of the said school. Appellant 's services as such a teacher were terminated w.e.f. 22 -3 -1979 vide resolution dated 12 -3 -79 of the said Managing Committee. This order of termination was passed without any prior approval from any authority. The District Education Officer on that basis on 29 -8 -79 issued communication (Ex.P/12) to the secretary of the Society that the appellant may be reinstated with immediate effect. The appellant thereafter went to the school on 31 -8 -1979, but was not permitted to join. She approached the president of the Managng Committee, who directed the Principal to peruse the order of District Education Officer and to comply. Still the appellant was not allowed to join on her job as a teacher. No salary was paid to her. She also went on hunger -trike and during her hunger strike, the respondent No. 3, Principal gave a letter in writing (Ex. P/13) on 30 -4 -1982 to the Collector Morena that the appellant will be allowed to join in the school and the Collector, Morena also on the same day communicated this consent to the Union leaders. Still she was not permitted to join. Thereafter, "he District Education Officer also wrote to the secretary of the Society on 7 -4 -83 (Ex.P/4 that the appellant should be taken back within seven days otherwise his office shall be constrained to terminate the recognition of the said institute. Still the appellant was not permitted to join back. Thus, she filed a civil suit claiming the arrears of her salary amounting to Rs. 34211.60 p. together with future wages and for declaration of the order of her removal dated 22 -3 -1979 as illegal and for injunction prohibiting the respondent from interfering with her services in the said school. This suit registered as Civil Suit 203 -A/85 was decided by Third Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Morena on 30 -3 -90 in her favour. On an appeal by the respondents No.1 to 3, impugned judgment and decree dated 23 -1 -91 was delivered by the learned Single Judge holding that the suit of the appellant was not maintainable and was hopelessly barred by limitation.

(3.) AS far as the question of maintainability of the suit itself was concerned, it cannot be disputed that the claim of the appellant that her removal was void ab initio was based on the protection given to such teachers under sub -clause (iii) of Clause (a) of Section 6 of M.P. Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Ad -hyapakon Tatha Anya Karmachariyon Ke Vetano Ka Sanday), Adhiniyam, 1978, as it stood at that time. This provision as it stood at that time, i.e. before amendment in 1981 was as follows: -