JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29th March, 1976, passed by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Deoria in Civil Appeal No. 78 of 1976 arising out of Original Suit No. 910 of 1972, Keshav Prasad v. Marwari Inter College, Deoria and Ors.
3. The appellant has sought relief by means of this appeal for setting aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court and to restore that of the trial court decreeing the plaintiff-appellant's claim with costs.
4. The brief facts of the case are enumerated below.
5. The plaintiff-appellant was a teacher in Marwari Intermediate College alias Maharaja Agrasen Intermediate College, [hereinafter referred to as College). The plaintiff-appellant Keshav Prasad Tewari was appointed on 17.7.1960 as a confirmed teacher in the College. At the time of termination of his service, he was placed under suspension on 14.8.1965 and was served the charge-sheet. The enquiry was conducted into the charges and later on, he was dismissed from the service. Aggrieved by the impugned order of dismissal, the plaintiff-appellant filed Original Suit No. 910 of 1972 for a declaration that the orders of the defendants are bad in law and he still continues in service.
6. The decision regarding dismissal of the plaintiff-appellant was approved by the District Inspector of Schools on 6.5.1968 but the order of dismissal was converted into termination by the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria. In appeal, the Deputy Director of Education converted the termination into removal of service. In the suit, the plaintiff contended that all the proceedings are void and ineffective for the reason that they are in clear defiance of the Code of Education and rules of natural justice. The plaintiff-appellant filed writ petition in the meantime which was also dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. The trial court framed seven issues, which are as follows :
7. Issues Nos. 1. 2, 3, 5 and 6 were decided in negative. Only issue No. 4 was affirmative in the judgment and order of the trial court dated 23.12.1975. The trial court decreed the plaintiffs suit with costs and declared that the plaintiff continues to be a permanent teacher of the defendants and he is entitled to all the benefits as a teacher since the date of his removal.
8. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court passed by the Munsif, Deoria dated 23.12.1975, the College filed Civil Appeal No. 78 of 1976, which was allowed. The following substantial questions of law have been framed in this appeal :
(1) Whether the jurisdiction of the civil court is impliedly barred in" a suit, challenging the order of dismissal/removal from service? If so, what is the forum of redressal of the grievance of such an employee terminated from service?
(2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, the principle of resjudicata is vitiated in law?
9. Admittedly, no issue regarding the plea of res-judicata was framed by the trial court. The lower court has given up this question and found that the plea was raised earlier. On an application being made the issues were framed and the appellate court held that the case was barred by the principles of res-judicata in view of the decision in Writ Petition No. 653 of 1970, dated 6.9.1971. Therefore, the suit must be dismissed.
10. It is against the order and judgment of the appellate court dated 29.3.1976 that the present second appeal has been filed. The substantial questions of law framed are covered in this judgment and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in latest case of C.T. Nikam v. Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad, 2002 (92) FLR 1159, besides other cases. In this case, the Apex Court decided that the relief of quashing termination by the plaintiff in suits cannot be granted by civil court because the teacher is not a workman. Hence jurisdiction of civil court is barred.
11. In view of the decision of this Court dismissing the Writ Petition No. 653 of. 1970 on merits by judgment dated 8.9.1971. I hold that the case of the appellant is barred by the principle of res-judicata as all the points raised in this appeal, were decided in the writ petition.
12. No other point has been argued before me.
13. The appeal is decided accordingly. The interim order, if any, stands vacated.