Suit filed by plaintiff before Civil Court barred by the provisions of the Act.

Second defendant in O.S.No.882 of 1990, on the file of Principal Sub Judge, Madurai, has filed this second appeal.

2. The following substantial questions of law has been raised for consideration in this second appeal:

"(1) Whether the judgment of the lower appellate court could be sustained on the facts and circumstances of this case in the light of the principles of law applicable thereto? and (2) Whether the view of the lower courts that the suit is competent is sustainable in law?"

3. Plaintiff is the first respondent, 1st defendant is the second respondent and defendants 3 to 5 in the suit are respondents 3 to 5 in this second appeal. The parties to this second appeal are mentioned hereafter according to their rank in the suit.

4. The plaintiff filed the suit for the following reliefs:

"(a) To pass a decree of declaration declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to continue in the post of Tamil Pandit even after 310. 1990 as such entitled to all the benefits, salary, etc.

(b) in consequence of the grant of declaration to pass an decree for permanent injunction-restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s continuance as a Tamil Pandit by preventing or otherwise affecting her right to service in the 1st defendant- School.

(c) To pay the cost of this action by the contesting defendants."

5. In the suit, there are five defendants. Defendants 3 to 5 are the authorities under the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), and the first defendant is the management.

6. The material facts which gave rise to the filing of the suit and this second appeal can be summarised as follows:

The second defendant was appointed as a Tamil Pandit on 7. 1967. Since there was some violation by the management regarding directions given by the Government, the recognition was withdrawn and 31 teachers including the appellant herein were removed from service. These teachers filed appeal before the Chief Educational Officer, Madurai, on 1. 1974, and as per order dated 210. 1978, the appeal was allowed. The management filed appeal before the Educational Tribunal as C.M.A. No.376 of 1978, but it was dismissed on 26. 1981. Against the decision of the Educational Tribunal, the first defendant filed W.P. No. 10334 of 1981 before this Court. This Court remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The second defendant filed Writ Appeal No.357 of 1990 before this Court, and pending appeal, there was a compromise between the second defendant and the first defendant, and an order was passed in terms of the compromise. The salient features of the compromise are:

"In view of the agreement between the learned counsel for the parties, on instructions from their respective clients, it is not necessary for us to refer to the facts of the case or event the order of the Tribunal or the judgment of the learned single Judge, impugned in this appeal and it would suffice to say that during the course of hearing when the Bench expressed the opinion about the violation of Sec.44(1) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1978 and the consequences of non-deposit of the amount as envisaged by Sec.44(4) of the Act, the learned counsel for the parties have agreed on instructions from their respective clients, to the following order being made:

1. That the appellant shall be reinstated by the first respondent-School forthwith.

2. That the appellant shall not claim any backwages till the date of her reinstatement.

3. That the appellant shall be granted continuity of service from the date of her termination till the date of her reinstatement for the purpose of fixation of her seniority and further fixation of her salary, etc., but without any backwages. In view of the abovesaid agreed order, the writ appeal is disposed of. No costs.

" After the compromise, the second defendant was reinstated in service on 8. 1990 and she continued in service til