RAKESH TIWARI,J. - (1.) MATTER is taken up in the revised list. None appears on behalf of the petitioner to argue the case. Counsel for respondent No. 4 and the Standing Counsel are present.
(2.) A dispute arose with regard to management of Udit Narain Intermediate College, Padrauna, Deoria of which Kr. Ram Pratap Narain Singh admittedly was the Manager/Secretary since 1955. It was claimed by the other faction that Kr. Ram Pratap Narain Singh, Plaintiff No. 2 in O.S. No. 751 of 1972 had been removed. Kr. Ram Pratap Narain Singh instituted O.S. Wherein the Trial Court held that plaintiff No. 2, Kr. Ram Pratap Narain Singh is the Secretary and continued to be the Secretary of the Committee and that the defendant was not even a member of the committee. The temporary injunction was granted and the injunction application thereafter was disposed of in favour of the plaintiff vide order dated 2.6.1975. It is further brought on record that the order of injunction passed by the Trial Court was confirmed by setting aside the order of the Lower Appellate Court which disagreed with the Trial Court. The injunction granted by the Trial Court dated 2.6.1975 was restored by the High Court vide judgment dated 9.2.1976. The petitioner claims to have been appointed by Sri Vasudeo Pratap Narain Singh as C.T. Grade teacher in science claiming through defendant No. 1 in O.S. No. 751 of 1972 who had already been injuncted from interfering in the affairs of the management. Thus, the alleged appointment claimed by the petitioner is by a person who was not only a stranger but had been injuncted by the Civil Court from interfering in any manner into management and working of plaintiff and college. The alleged appointment of the petitioner therefore, is void having been made by a stranger who had already been restrained from functioning and interfering in the affairs of the institution. It is also brought on record that taking advantage of the ongoing dispute and the conduct of the then Principal, who was also restrained vide injunction suit colluded with a complete stranger in forging the appointment of the petitioner. The alleged appointment of the petitioner therefore, having been made by a stranger and being in teeth of an injunction order, cannot confer any right upon the petitioner.
(3.) TAKING advantage of managerial dispute and in teeth of the injunction order Sri Vasudeo Pratap Narain Singh claiming through the defendant in O.S. No. 751 appointed the petitioner as Wood Craft Teacher and cancelled the earlier appointment of the petitioner made on 31.7.1974. This appointment letter dated 16.1.1976 also is void as it is in teeth of the order and injunction passed by the Competent Court and it cannot be relied upon.;