NANDA DULAL MAHATO Vs. HAZARI LAL MONDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule relates to an order of the District Judge at Alipore dated the 19th of December, 1973, refusing to grant an ad interim stay pending the hearing of the appeal.

(2.) The petitioner's case is that he was permanent Headmaster of Mondal Para High School. His service was ap- proved by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education in 1968. Thereafter he was forced to resign on 21-1-1969. The respondent Sree H. L. Mondal, a special cadre teacher, was appointed Headmaster by the Managing Committee with effect from 16-8-1971 but the same was disapproved by the District Inspector of School by letters dated 12-6-1972 and 27-7-1972. The respondent, according to the petitioner, did not have the requisite qualification to be a Headmaster on 15-8-1971. After representation made by the petitioner the District Inspector of School wanted a report from the Secretary of the Managing Committee about the petitioner's resignation. After due enquiries the Director of Board of Instruction directed the District Inspector to allow the petitioner to function as the Headmaster. The District Inspector sent letters to that effect and the Managing Committee by resolution dated the 19-4-1973 allowed the petitioner to resume his duties. Apprehending that the petitioner might join as Headmaster the respondent filed a suit for a permanent, injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with his function as Headmaster. The learned Munsiff passed an ad interim order of injunction restraining the petitioner on 30-9-1972. He also injuncted the petitioner from entering the School premises. The ex parte order was made absolute on the 11th of December, 1973. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge at Alipore being Miscellaneous Appeal No. 898 of 1973 against the said order of the Munsiff dated 11-2-1973. The learned Appellate Court, however, did not issue an interim order of stay before the final hearing of that miscellaneous appeal. The impugned order of the learned District Judge which is challenged in this rule is as follows:

(3.) "It appears that the appellant was already injuncted by the order dated the 30-9-1972. In the circumstances no order of interim stay is granted."