( 1 ) BY this petition, the defendant No. 1 Balco Shiksban samiti seeks review of order dated 2-4-1991 passed by this Court in M. A. No. 187/90 while disposing of the said appeal.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts, giving rise to the above said miscellaneous appeal briefly stated, are as follows : the plaintiffs were employed as teachers in the institutions run by the defendent No. I/society. The said institutions did not received any grant-in aid from the State Government. Apprehending termination of their employment, they instituted a suit against the Society in November 1989 claiming that in the facts and circumstances of the case their services deserved to be regularised and the defendant No. 1 Society was liable to be restrained from putting an end to their employment. In the said suit, they also made an application for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. In view of the said application, the trial Court, at first, granted an ex-parte temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs on 27-11 1989 directing the defendant No. 1 Society to maintain the status quo until further orders. However, later on, the said Court, after hearing both the parties, vacated the said ex-parte temporary injunction vide its order dated 23-4-1990.

( 3 ) THIS Court, after hearing both the parties, vide its order dated 2-4-1991, passed in M. A. No. 187/90 allowed the said appeal and se taside the order dated 23-4-1090 passed by the trial Court. Instead, it allowed the application made by the plaintiffs for grant of temporary injunction under order 39, Rules 1 and 2,. C. P. C. restrained the defendant No. 1 Society from putting and end to the employment of all the plaintiffs excepting twelve of them till the disposal of the suit by the trial Court. In respect of the said twelve plaintiffs, it directed that if within a period of one month from the date of the order any of them reports for duty to the Society, he/she shall be reinstated by it on his/her previous post w. e. f. the said date.

( 4 ) IT may be mentioned that while allowing the miscellaneous appeal filed by the plaintiffs and granting temporary injunction to the above said effect, this Court, in its order dated 2-4-1991, made a reference to Regulation no. 71 of the Regulations framed by the Board of Secondary Education, madhya Pradesh under Section 28 (2) (d) of the M. P. Madhyamik Shiksha adhiniyam, 1965. It was provided in the said Regulation that all Principal, head Masters, Lecturers and Teachers, except those appointed, temporarily for a period of less than one year, shall be on probation for a term of one year which may be extended to two years. It also provided that in after two years of service any incumbent is continued in his appointment, he shall, unless the appointing authority for reasons to be recorded in writing otherwise directs, be deemed to have been confirmed in that appointment. It further provided that on confirmation the incumbent shall sing a contract of service in the Form I or II as the case may be as soon as practicable.

( 5 ) THIS Court was of the opinion that enough material was placed by the plaintiffs before the trial Court for making it prima facie satisfied that their appointment had not been intended to be temporary for a period of less than one year. It was in the said circumstances that this Court came to the conclusion that as the provisions of Regulation 71 had clearly statutory force, there was no reason for the trial Court not to grant the prayer for temporary injunction made by the plaintiffs. This Court was further of the opinion that from the point of view of social justice, the balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiffs and it was apparent that they were bound to suffer an irreparable injury in case the temporary in junction as asked for was not granted to them.

( 6 ) IN the present application for review, made by the defendant No. 1 society, it is tried to be argued by it that there was a mista