SHIBA PROSAD CHAKRAVARTY Vs. SUBODH KUMAR ROY CHOWDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the plaintiff against the judgment of reversal.

(2.) The facts according to the plaint are as follows : Ballygunge, Mohini Mohan Uchcha Vidyalaya is a Government Aided School recognized by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. The defendant was originally appointed since 14.1.68 as officiating Head Master and thereafter from 15.5.68 was appointed as Head Master provisionally for a period of one year. By a letter dated 25.11.68 addressed to the plaintiff, Secretary of the School, the defendant tendered his resignation from the post of Head Master. The said letter was placed at the meeting of the Managing Committee on 8.12.68 and on that day the defendant also made a prayer for two months' leave from 1st January, 1969 to 28.2.69 on medical ground. The resignation was accepted at the said meeting of the Managing Committee but the Committee allowed the defendant to continue in office till 31.12.68 and he was also granted two months' leave with pay subject to the approval of D.I. The defendant was further directed to make over charge on or before 23.12.68 to the newly appointed Head Master. The necessary resolutions were passed by the Committee at the said meeting when the defendant was present and signed the minutes as member of such committee. Gist of the resolutions was indicated to the defendant by a letter dated 9.12.68 and he was asked thereby to make over charge to the newly appointed Head Master on 23.12.68. the letter was received by the defendant on 10.12.68 but the defendant failed and neglected to hand over charge as required in spite of the demand and requests. By letter dated 30.12.68 the defendant requested the plaintiff to treat the leave as cancelled and declined to hand over the charge on flimsy ground. The defendant and his associates had been wrongfully and illegally disturbing with the normal duties of the Head Master who had been discharging the duties as officiating Head Master. The plaintiff in his report of 3.1.69 drew the attention of the members of the Committee to the illegal acts of the defendant. An emergent meeting of the Managing Committee was held on 5.1.69 when its members passed a resolution asking the defendant again to make over charge to the said newly appointed Head Master or the Secretary. The defendant failed to comply with the said request and was interfering and creating disturbances with the function of the present Head Master/Secretary. The defendant had no legal right or authority to interfere with the normal functioning of the school and accordingly the plaintiff instituted the present suit on 10.1.69 praying for an injunction restraining the defendant, his men and associates from entering into the school premises or disturbing the functioning of the school. There was a prayer for temporary injunction also and the plaintiff further prayed for leave under Order 1 Rule 8 for representing other members of the Managing Committee of the School.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit filing a written statement and it was stated therein that while in office he detected many irregularities and malpractices committed by the Secretary in financial and other matters. The Secretary wanted to put the defendant into inconvenience by various methods and in hostile and difficult situation, the defendant wrote the letter on 25.11.68 giving vent to his difficulty and inconvenience in running the school, expressing his contemplation to resign from his post. The latter, actually meant for redress of the grievances, was not a letter of resignation and could not be treated as such and was not treated so by the Managing Committee who granted two months leave to the defendant as prayed for. It was denied that the resignation was accepted in his presence and it was stated that there were additions and alterations in the resolutions. On receipt of the letter of 9.12.68 the defendant made verbal protest to the plaintiff who then agreed to regularize the whole thing. The appointment of a new Head Master was also illegal and inoperative violating the provisions of law. The defendant thereafter cancelled his leave and the question of handing over charge did not arise. The defendant contended that he was a permanent teacher of the school and was still continuing as the Head Master in any circumstances. Further the suit was not maintainable as framed and was barred under Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and should accordingly be dismissed.