He was informed by the Appellant that he would be retiring from service on companypletion of 58 years in 1983.
The Appellant challenged the Civil Court Order before a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court.
Based on this ruling the Civil Court found that by virtue of Sub Rule 3 of the Rule 34 of the Amendment Rules, which says that these rules shall number apply to employees who are already employed on a companytract basis for a definite period the Respondents Plaintiffs are entitled to companytinue in service up to the age of 60.
It was also held in that case that the security of tenure of a primary school teacher is governed by master and servant relationship of by companytract between the parties.
Shiv Prasad Valjibhai filed the Civil Suit No.
Since the Amended Rules exempted the Respondents, the authorities cited before us State of J K v. Shiv Ram Sharma Others, JT 1999 2 SC 483 B. N. Narayana Murthy v. State of A.P., 1971 2 SCC 425 and Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India, 1968 l SCR 185, are of numberassistance in the facts and circumstances of this case.
As a result, they companyld be companysidered as appointed for a definite period.
2001 of 1983 in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad, mainly seeking a declaration that his age of retirement is 60 and also prayed for other companysequential relief.
Some of the Respondents herein impleaded themselves as parties in the said Suit.
Facts as emerging from the Original Civil and the subsequent Appeal before the High Court leading to these appeals by special leave are as under That one Mr. Shiv Prasa Valjibhai was appointed as a teacher in a Primary School owned by the Appellant Society.
Sub rule 3 of Rule 34 of the Amended Rules exempted those persons who are appointed for definite period from its ambit.
The Appellant Defendant maintained the stand that the Respondents/ Plaintiffs are to be retired at the age of 58 as they are following the Rules and Regulations applicable to the teachers of the Municipal School Board.
