RAKESH Sharma, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Aashish Agarwal, holding brief of Sri K. Shailendra, learned Counsel for the appellants, Managing Committee, Farrukhabad City Girls Higher Secondary School, Farrukhabad, the employer and Sri Atul Dayal, learned Counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of Smt. Rose Mary Lal, erstwhile teacher of the said institution. This F. A. F. O. arises out of a dispute between a minority teaching institution and its teacher.
(2.) THROUGH this appeal the appellants have assailed the judgment and order dated 16-12-1996 passed by the Second Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Farrukhabad allowing the application seeking review of the order dated 16-12-1996 passed in Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1991, which emanated out of the original suit No. 216 of 1987 filed by Smt. Rose Mary Lal against the Managing Commit tee and others. The appellants have sought setting aside of the impugned judg ment and order of the Court below passed on 16-12-1996. This Court while admitting the appeal on 31-3-1997 has stayed the opera tion of the impugned decree. The plaintiff Smt Rose Mary Lal filed a suit No. 216 of 1987 against the appellant educational institution seeking declaration that the plaintiff was continuing in the service as Assistant Teacher of the institution ar rayed as defendant No. 1. She has further sought a relief of restraining the defen dants- management of the institution from interfering in her working as Assistant Teacher. In the suit the plaintiff-respondent had claimed that she was permanent teacher in Farrukhabad City Girls Higher Secondary School since 1975 (hereinaf ter referred to as the institution ). This was a recognized and aided institution of the Government and was under the administrative supervision of District Inspec tor of Schools, Farrukhabad. The plaintiff-respondent had set up a case that she was prevented to work in the institution on the ground that the petitioner had remained absent from duties as she was on long leave during the period from 6-12-1981 to 6-5-1982. She was not permitted to sign in the attendance register from 8-5-1982 to 18-5-1982. She again came to assume her duties from 1-7-1982 but she was not allowed to sign the attendance register and was not permitted to discharge her normal duties. A show cause notice was issued against the plain tiff-respondent on 17-9-1982 to which she had responded on 24-9-1982. However, vide a letter dated 14-10-1982, her services were terminated w. e. f. 7-5-1982. Be ing aggrieved of this action, a suit was filed in the year 1987. The appellant institution contested the suit on a number of pleas denying the plaintiff-respondent's allegations. It was indicated in the written statement etc. that the plaintiff-teacher had remained absent for a long period unauthorisedly without seeking prior permission from the competent authority. It was categori cally submitted in the replies that the institution in question is a minority institu tion and it is governed by its own rules and regulations. No prior permission was required before terminating the services of the teacher. However, the suit was decreed by the Court below on 16-2-1991 against which a civil appeal being Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1991 was preferred by the management of the institution. This civil appeal was allowed in favour of the employer-institution on 30-5-1992. It was held in the civil appeal that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief as she was absent without leave and her statement that even though her services were termi nated in 1982 but she continued to attend the college up to 6- 4-1987 was found to be incorrect. It was also found that she produced manufactured and doubtful documents in her support. Suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It was held that the suit was not maintainable and the documents 26 and 27 were not genuine documents. Further the suit was held to be barred by limitation.
(3.) THE plaintiff-respondent, teacher had preferred a review application being Review Petition No. 52/74/92. This review petition was allowed by the afore-men tioned Court vide impugned order dated 16-12-1996 and the appellate Court's earlier judgment dated 30-5-1992 was set aside and the suit was decreed. The appellants have assailed the said judgment and order on various grounds, like the Court below has re-heard the matter and re-appreciated the entire evidence on record and has come to the entirely different conclusion. The Court has, in fact, transgressed its jurisdiction and has acted against the provi sions contained in order 47 Rule-land 4 of C. P. C. It did not record as to what was the error apparent on the record in the earlier judgment which was sought to be reviewed. An error of judgment cannot be corrected in exercise of jurisdiction of the Court conferred on it under Order 47 Rule 1 of the C. P. C.;