JUDGMENT

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

CM-6034-C-2022

The present application has been filed for early hearing of the main regular second appeal.

2. Notice of the application was issued to the counsel opposite.

3. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, the application is allowed. Regular second appeal is taken up for hearing today itself.

RSA-3290-2011

4. Present regular second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court dated 20.05.2011 by which, the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 17.02.2010 has been set aside and the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff has been allowed by holding that the termination of her service was bad and a direction was given to reinstate the respondent-plaintiff in service and she was made entitled for the grant of pay, allowance and other benefits by treating her to be in service along with interest @ 9% per annum.

5. On 05.03.2012, while issuing notice of motion, a Coordinate Bench of this Court passed a detailed order qua the maintainability of the suit keeping in view the relief sought of enforcing the contract of service and permissibility of the same in view of section 14 of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT , 1963 and the settle principle of law noticed therein and the same is reproduced hereinafter:-

"Plaintiff-respondent had sought a decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendant-appellants to reinstate her in service with all service benefits for the period she remained out of job on account of letter dated August 7, 2006 issued by the defendant-appellants claiming that she had joined as JBT Teacher in Hindu Vidyapeeth School, of defendant-appellants on July 1, 1993. Th said school is affiliated to Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSC), Delhi vide affiliation NO.530041 and the affiliation bye-laws of CBSC. Plaintiff-respondent claimed that her appointment on July 1, 1993 was for a probation period of one year which ended on June 30.1994 and she continued in service with the defendant-appellant School i.e Hindu Vidyapeeth School without any break. On August 7, 2006 her services were terminated by the defendant-appellants illegally and arbitrarily . She claims that she would stand confirmed upon expiry of probation period which could run maximum upto two years till May 30. 1995. Though the defendants had not passed any order regarding her conformation but she completed the probation period during which her conduct was found satisfactory and that she claimed deemed confirmation on expiry of probation period. She challenged her termination being violation of statutory provisions. The defendants admitted that the School is run by the Managing Committee and is affiliated with CBSC. The affiliation of the School with CBSE is for the purpose that the Board will conduct examination for the grade 10 and 12 and declare their results and that the school will adopt the syllabi prescribed by CBSE, otherwise, the CBSE had nothing to do with appointment or termination of the service of the school employees. The CBSE bye-lays were simply guidelines and directory. It was claimed that the removal of plaintiff-respondent from service was not in breach of statutory provisions as per the terms of appointment letter and service contract and that she could be terminated by serving one month's notice or payment in lieu thereof but has been paid three months salary in lieu of three months notice as her services were terminated. The trial Court framed the following issues:-

i) Whether the termination of services of the plaintiff by letter dated 7.8.2006 is illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs?OPP

(ii) If issue NO.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of declaration as well as mandatory injunction as prayed ? OPD

(iii) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

(iv) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit? OP