A.N.Varma - (1.) THIS is defendants' second appeal arising out of a suit for declaration that the order dated 26-2-80 passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ballia directing the plaintiff management to allow the defendant no. 1 (appellant in this appeal) to work as a teacher and to pay his salary as usual till the conclusion of the criminal proceedings pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate 2 Ballia is null and void as well as for permanent injunction restraining the appellant from enforcing the aforesaid order dated 26-2-1980. Both the courts below have decreed the suit. Aggrieved, the defendant no. 1 has filed this second appeal.
(2.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the courts below have committed a patent illegality in holding that his alleged dismissal by the Committee of Management was not justiceable inasmuch as according to them the relationship between the appellant and the Management was purely contractual in nature. Learned counsel also submitted that the order passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari directing the Management to continue to pay salary to the appellant until the decision of the criminal case pending against him was perfectly within the jurisdiction of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari in view of the provisions of the U. P. Junior High School (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and others Employees) Rules, 1978. In order to appreciate this contention, it will be necessary to set out certain minimum facts. The appellant was employed as a teacher in a Junior High School the affairs of which were being managed by a Committee of Management in accordance with the relevant statutes. The committee of Management by its resolution dated 24-1-1979 however, dismissed him from service whereupon, he made representations before the Basic Shiksha Adhikari against the dismissal as well as the stoppage of salary. It appears while correspondence was going on between the Basic Shiksha Adhikari and the Management, it was brought to the notice of the former that a criminal case had been instituted and was pending against the appellant under section 323/325 IPC whereupon without pronouncing on the complaint of the appellant, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari passed the order dated 26-2-1980, presumably as an interim measure, directing the Management to pay salary to the petitioner until the disposal of the criminal case. It is this order which has been assailed by the Management in the suit. The ground upon which the suit was filed was that the Basic Shiksha Adhikari had no jurisdiction to issue such a direction to the Management as well as the appellant had already been dismissed from service and that order had neither been set aside nor adjudged void.
(3.) BOTH the courts below have decreed the suit holding that the Basic Shiksha Adhikari had no power to issue such a direction or to thrust the appellant on the Management inasmuch as the relationship between the appellant and the Management was purely contractual in nature and that if the appellant felt aggrieved by the action of the Management the only relief he could claim was by way of compensation/damages. It is apparent that the view taken by the courts below that the relationship between the appellant and the Management was purely contractual is unsustainable in law. The terms and conditions of services of teachers are regulated by statutes including the U. P. Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers Rules, 1978. The teachers of such institution enjoy a status and their employment could be brought about end to only by action which is taken in accordance with those rules. The courts below have, however, made no effort to examine whether the dismissal of the appellant was in accordance with law probably because they were of the opinion that it could not go into that question.;