- (1.)The present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'C.P.C.') has been preferred by the plaintiff against the judgement and decree dated 06.09.1980 passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad in Civil Appeal No. 209 of 1979 (Makkhan Lal Sharma Vs. Sarvodaya Shiksha Samiti and others), whereby the judgement and decree of the dismissal of the suit bearing No. 835 of 1975 passed by the learned Trial Court, has been upheld.
(2.)The appellant-plaintiff has filed the original suit bearing No. 835 of 1975 against the respondents-defendants for permanent injunction alleging that in the educational session of the year 1974-75, he was appointed as a Trained Graduate Teacher in the Sarvodaya Vidyalay Inter college, Pilukhwa, run by the respondent No. 1 Sarvodaya Sikcha Samiti, on the probation of one year and he started working in the college from 08.07.1974, however, the approval of his appointment by the District Inspector of School, Meerut (In short referred as DIOS) was granted on 30.08.1974. The respondents-defendants have accepted his appointment from the date of approval i.e. 30.08.1974 and he was not paid the salary of the period prior to 30.08.1974. The probation of one year came to be expired on 07.07.1975 and as he has completed the period of probation and his services were not terminated till 07.07.1975, therefore he became a permanent teacher with effect from 08.07.1975. It was further averred that even during his probation period his service could only be terminated under Rule 25 of U.P. Intermediate Education Act with the previous approval of the DIOS, Meerut by giving a one month notice or by giving one month salary. On the night of 29.08.1975 he was informed by the telegram that his services have been terminated while he was neither given a notice of one month nor the salary of one month was paid to him. As per the plaintiff, his services were not terminated during the period of probation, thus with effect from 08.07.1975 he became a permanent employee. It was averred that the alleged telegram is irregular, unauthorised and illegal and therefore it is ineffective. The service of the appellant/plaintiff was not terminated in accordance with law nor there is any information regarding approval of the DIOS, Meerut. On the basis of these averments the appellant-plaintiff has sought a decree of injunction to the effect that the respondents-defendants be restrained from interfering in the job of the plaintiff as a teacher on the basis of the alleged telegram dated 29.08.1975.
(3.)The respondents-defendants contested the suit and filed their written statement wherein inter-alia it was averred that the plaintiff was appointed as teacher on 30.08.1974 and not from 08.07.1974 and the period of his probation has to be ended on 30.08.1975 and not on 29.08.1975. The appellant-plaintiff has joined the institution as a Trained graduate teacher on 30.08.1974 on the probation of one year. The managing body of the school has passed a resolution that the services of the appellant-plaintiff may be terminated and the same was sent for the approval of the DIOS. The approval for termination was granted on 28.08.1975. After obtaining due approval from the DIOS, Meerut, the services of the plaintiff were terminated on the last day of his probation i.e. on 29.08.1974. In lieu of one month notice, the appellant-plaintiff was paid one month salary. The services of the plaintiff were terminated in accordance with rules during the period of his probation and he was paid salary of one month.