Tarun Agarwala, J. - (1.) The plaintiffs filed a suit for a mandatory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their services as assistant teachers in C.T. Grade in the defendant's educational institution. The plaintiffs further prayed that the defendant be directed to pay the salary w.e.f. September, 1980 onwards. The plaintiffs alleged that they have been working as assistant teachers since 17.7.1978 and that they have been illegally removed by verbal order of the manager w.e.f, 29.12.1981. The plaintiffs further alleged that the defendant's institution was a recognized institution under the Basic Education Act and that the provision of Rule 11 of U. P. Recognised Basic Schools (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Other Conditions) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1975) are applicable, which stipulates that no teacher of a recognised school shall be dismissed or removed except by a prior approval in writing of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. The plaintiffs further alleged that they have not been paid their salary since September. 1980 and since their removal was in violation of Rule 11 of the Rules of 1975, they are entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction.
(2.) The defendant contested the suit and contended that the plaintiff No. 1 was appointed on a temporary basis on 17.7.1978 and thereafter, voluntarily left the services on 3.3.1979. The plaintiff No. 2 was appointed on a temporary basis on 17.7.1978 and voluntarily left the services on 20.6.1979. The defendant further contended that the plaintiff No. 2 was again appointed on a temporary basis w.e.f, 1.7.1979 and worked till 6.11.1979. It was further alleged that the plaintiff No. 1 was again appointed on a temporary basis on 10.9.1979 and he worked till 20.5.1980. The defendant further contended that the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 were again appointed on temporary basis on 1.7.1980 and that they worked till 20.5.1981 and thereafter, did not work as assistant teachers. In paragraph 4 of the written statement, the defendant contended that their educational institution was not recognised previously under the Basic Education Act and only recently the educational institution had been given recognition. In paragraph 5 of the written statement the defendant contended that Rule 11 of the Rules of 1975 was not applicable to the plaintiffs' case and that no previous approval was required from the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. The defendant contended that after 20.5.1981, the plaintiffs never worked and, therefore, the question of the removal of their services w.e.f, 29.12.1981 does not arise.
(3.) The trial court after framing the issues and after considering the evidence on record decreed the suit of the plaintiffs holding that the defendant's educational institution was a recognised institution and that the Rules of 1975 are applicable and that the defendant could not remove the plaintiffs unless prior approval from the Basic Shiksha Adhikari was obtained. The trial court further held that the services of the plaintiffs were illegally removed by the defendant from 29.12.1981.;