Yatindra Singh, Ran Vijai Singh - (1.) - The main question involved in this appeal is when can a contract of personal service be enforced in a civil suit. THE FACTS
(2.) THERE is a school known as Shri Shanker Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Pargana Ghosi, district Azamgarh (the School). This school imparts education up of 10th class and is recognised under Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (the Act) ; it is also given grant-in-aid by the State Government in respect of salaries of its teachers and non-teaching staff. The plaintiff-appellant was appointed as Class IV employee in the School on 1.3.1976 and was subsequently confirmed. There was misappropriation of Rs. 1,400 from the Boys' Fund. It was alleged that the plaintiff-appellant had forged the signatures of the Principal and had taken out the money. The defendant-respondent was the officiating Principal of the school. He called an explanation of the plaintiff-appellant on 11.5.1977. Initially a reply was submitted on 11.5.1977. Thereafter, the plaintiff-appellant admitted his guilt on 15.5.1977. Subsequently, his services were terminated on 12.6.1977. The plaintiff-appellant filed the Original Suit No. 259 of 1977 against the officiating Principal, who is sole defendant-respondent in the suit, for declaration that : o The termination order dated 12.6.1977 was illegal, null and void ; and o An injunction be issued restraining the defendant-respondent from interfering/stopping the plaintiff-appellant from functioning as the Class IV employee of the School. The defendant-respondent filed written statement denying the allegations of the suit.
(3.) THE trial court decreed the suit on 16.5.1979. THE Court restrained the defendant-respondent for interfering with the service of the plaintiff-appellant. THE Court while decreeing the suit recorded the following findings : o THE civil court has jurisdiction to decide the suit. This was held earlier on 24.8.1978. o THE defendant-respondent could not be officiating Principal of the School. o THE principle of natural justice were not followed in conducting the enquiry. The defendant-respondent filed an appeal. This appeal was allowed on 12.11.1980 and the suit was dismissed. The appellate court recorded the following findings : o It can not be said that the defendant-respondent was not the officiating Principal of the School. o There was no illegality in terminating the services of the plaintiff-appellant.;