The termination of the services of a permanent employee of an Intermediate College can only be done by giving three months' notice or three months' pay in lieu thereof, and only on the ground of abolition of the post held by the employee.

This is a defendants second appeal arising out of a suit filed by the plaintiff-respondents for a declaration to the effect that they are still in service of the defendant-appellant College run and managed by the respondent No. 5 managing committee. The trial Court had decreed the suit. On appeal the decree of the trial Court was affirmed. Hence this second appeal by the defendant-appellant No. 1, who is the Principal of Swami Rama Nand Maha Vidyalaya Inter College, Farrukhabad.

Briefly stated, the plaint case was that the plaintiffs were the employee of the aforesaid college having been employed as peons. They were working in the College for the periods ranging between 15 months to 12 years. On the expiry of the periods of probation the plaintiffs were confirmed in service. The plaintiffs received notices of termination from defendant No. 4 Sri Sarju Prasad Tripathi, the Principal of the College on 26-9-1969 by which they were intimated that their services were terminated w e. f. 30th September, 1969. The plaintiffs were permanent employees and their services cannot be terminated except in accordance with statutory provisions namely the Intermediate Education Act and the Regulations framed thereunder. As the notices of termination violated the mandatory provisions of law they were null and void and the plaintiffs were entitled to be declared as continuing in service. The defence of the defendant No. 1 to 3 was that the plaintiffs were not employed by the college. They were the private servants of Sri Nanda Ram, ex-principal of the college. Their names do not find place in the pay roll of the college. In the alternative it was pleaded that the plaintiffs were temporary employees and their services could be terminated at any time. The suit for specific perform ance of the contract of service was not maintainable. The suit was also bad for raisjoinder of cause of action.

On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed;

1. Whether the suit is under-valued and Court-fee paid is insuffi cient ?

2. Whether the suit is bad for multifariousness ?

3. Whether the plaintiffs were servants of the college? If so, its effect ?

4. Whether the defendant No. 1 s order to terminate the services of the plaintiffs is illegal and invalid ?

5. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of plaintiffs ?

6. Whether the suit is not legally maintainable ?

7. To what relief, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled ?

The trial Court answered issues Nos. 3 and 4 which were the vital issues involved in the case, in favour of the plaintiff-respondents. It found that the plaintiffs were the confirmed employees of the College and that they were not the private servants of the principal. It further found that as confirmed employees the services of the plaintiff-respondents could not be terminated except by giving them statutory notices or salary in lieu thereof in accordance with the provisions of law, relating to the services of the category of the plaintiffs.

On these findings, the trial Court decreed the plaintiff-respondents suit. Aggrieved, the appellants filed an appeal. The appellate Court concurred with the trial Court in the findings mentioned above.

The lower appellate Court has held that under Rule 26 appearing under Chapter III of the Regulations framed under Section 15-G of the Intermediate Education Act, the services of permanent employee, of a College can be termi nated only by giving him three months notice or three months pay in lieu thereof on the ground of abolition of the post which the employee is holding. The appellate Court has found that in the present case, the post which the plaintiff-respondents No. 1 to 3 were holding had admittedly not been aboli shed. Indeed, the lower appellate Court has observed that it was not even the case of the defendants that the services of the plaintiffs have been terminated on account of abolition of their posts. The lower appellate Court has, therefore, held that the purported terminati