A.N.Varma, J. - (1.) This is a defendants petition directed against the orders passed by the courts below disposing of a preliminary issue relating to the jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain a suit filed by the respondent no. 2 against the petitioners for a declaration that an order passed by the District Inspector of Schools under the provisions of Section 16-G (2) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act granting the approval to the committee of management of the petitioner no. 1 college with regard to the action of the dismissal taken by the college against the respondent no. 2 was null and void.
(2.) The relevant facts are these:- The respondent no. 2 filed a suit for declaration that an order of approval dated 19-5-1978 passed by the District Inspector of Schools approving the the action of the committee of management of the college purporting to dismiss the petitioner from service was null and void and that the defendants be restrained from interfering with the functioning of the respondent no. 2 as teacher in the petitioner no. 1 college. The suit was based on the assertion that the action taken by the committee of management seeking to terminate the services of the petitioner was null and void. It was asserted that the plaintiff was not given adequate opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the management and that he did not have sufficient opportunity to defend himself. The action of the District Inspector of Schools granting approval to the action proposed to be taken by the committee of management was also challenged in the suit on the ground that he had not been served with a show cause notice. The defendants contested the suit on a variety or grounds. One of the pleas taken in the defence was that the suit was barred by the provisions of Section 16 G (4) of the U P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The trial court struck the preliminary issue relating to the jurisdiction of the court which' ran thus:- "Whether the suit is barred under Section 16-G (4) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 -
(3.) The trial court considered the above as a preliminary issue answered it against the defendant holding that the suit was not barred by Section 16-G (4) of the aforesaid Act. The defendants thereupon filed a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned District Judge. Fatehpur. The learned District Judge has dismissed the revision agreeing with the view taken by the trial court as regards to the jurisdiction of the trial court to take cognizance of the suit.;