VIDHYA BHAWAN SOCIETY Vs. VISHWA VIJAY SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the appellate order of the learned Additional District Judge No. I, Udaipur dated 16. 12. 1986 where by the learned lower court has accepted the appeal against the order of the learned Munsif& Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur City (North), Udaipur dated 28. 10. 1986 by which the learned Munsif& Judicial Magistrate dismissed the application of the plaintiff for grant of temporary injunction.

(2.) THE facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this revision petition briefly stated are: that the plaintiff-non-petitioner Smt. Vishwa Vijay Singh was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the year 1970 by defendant-petitioner No. 1 Vidhya Bhawan Society, Fatehpura, Udaipur. She was confirmed as Assistant Teacher on 10. 8. 1973. However, in pursuance of the resolution or the recommendation of the Staff Selection Committee at its meeting held on 11. 9. 1984, she was appointed as Head Mistress of the Nursery School by the Administrator of the Vidhya Bhawan Society on a probation of one year from the date she joins. It was mentioned in the appointment order that one month's notice will be necessary in case of termination of service from either side during probation period. It was further mentioned in the order that she will be required to execute the agreement bond. It is alleged that her period of probation was further extended for one more year with effect from 26. 9. 1985 vide order dated December 4, 1985 of the defendant-petitioner No. 1. THE plaintiff-non-petitioner has contended that that period of probation came to end on 25. 9. 1986 and during this period, she worked with honesty and integrity and for improvement of the institution. As per Rules, she has become permanent on the expiry of this period. However, on 26. 9. 1986, at about 4. 30 PM, after duty hours were over, she was served with a letter that she has not been confirmed by the President of defendant-petitioner No. l and, therefore, she has been reverted back as a Second Grade Teacher. THE grade of Head Master/mistress is two grades up from the Grade of a Second Grade Teacher. According to the plaintiff-non-petitioner, it is reduction in the rank and it has been done without giving her show cause notice and thus, her rights have been infringed. She has further contended that the persons who have issued this order have no authority to pass such an order. According to her, the President and Secretary of defendant-petitioner No. 1 cannot pass such an order without getting its approval from the Working Committee of the defendant-petitioner No. 1 and, therefore, she brought the suit for declaration that the impugned order dated 26. 9. 1986 is illegal and ineffective as against the rights of the plaintiff. She has also claimed perpetual injunction against the defendants not to revert her from the post of Head Mistress of the Nursery School without following due and prescribed procedure of the law. She further sought a mandatory injunction that even if the defendants remove her from that post, she will be put back on that post. She has further claimed that although the defendant-petitioner No. 1 is a registered educational institute but as it is getting aid from the State Govt, under the Rules for Payment of Grand-in-Aid to non-Government Educational, Cultural and Physical Education Institutions in Rajasthan, 1963 (for short 'the Rules'), it has no right to remove her from the service without complying with the procedure prescribed by these Rules. Alongwith the suit, an application for grant of temporary injunction was also filed containing the same allegations.

(3.) IT was also contended by Mr. N. N. Mathur, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners that the learned first appellate court has taken into consideration the Printed performa of Appendix-IV, the form of agreement to be executed by the Heads of recognised aided institution, provided under the Rules, which was beyond his scope. He could only have considered the material that has been placed on record and could not have travelled beyond it. No reliance was placed on proforma of Appendtx-IV of the Rules before the trial court and, therefore, no additional evidence could have been looked into without taking recourse to Order 41, r. 27 CPC. On behalf of the petitioner, his affidavit was filed that no such agreement was executed in proforma of Appendix-IV of the Rules. In this respect, reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Kusum Kumar Chowdhari Vs. Supra Films (3), wherein it has been held that the affidavits filed by the parties should be considered by the Court and no pro-tracted inquiry involving receipt of evidence in proof of facts should be made. Reliance was also placed on Smt. Vimla's case (supra), wherein it has been held that if the appellate court decides the appeal on the basis of the additional evidence, which did not form part of the record of the trial court, the order of the appellate court amounts to material irregularity. Mr. N. N. Mathur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has, therefore, submitted that this revision is maintainable.