Short Note : 1. The respondent was an educational society running a Higher Secondary School at Panagar. The applicant was appointed as Assistant teacher and in due course was confirmed with effect from 01-12-1960. The services of the appellant were terminated with effect from 31-07-1966. The plaintiff filed a suit for arrears of salary and for a declaration that his dismissal from service was wrongful and that he still continued to be in service. The plaintiff claimed that he was a confirmed teacher and his services could not be terminated at the sweet will of the respondent. The defendant claimed, that though the appellant had been confirmed, he resigned from the post on 09-11-1962, which resignation was accepted. Later at the request of the plaintiff, he was again appointed with effect from 30-11-1962. The plaintiff when he was again employed, entered into a bond and since the terms of the bond were not complied with, his services were terminated. Both the Courts below had dismissed the suit. 2. Held : It would be wholly unnecessary to decide other questions in this case as, in the opinion of this Court the plaintiff could not claim a declaration that the order terminating his services was incompetent or a nullity and that he continued to be in service in spite of the termination of the services. Such a declaration could not be given as it would be, in effect, to seek to enforce a contract of personal service and thus it offends against section 21 (b) of the Specific Relief Act. Since the relief of declaration could not be given the consequential relief for arrears of salary would not be maintainable. V.R. Misra v. Managing Committee, Jai Narain College, (1972) 1 SCC 622, U. P. State Warehousing Corporation v. C.K. Tyagi, AIR 1970 SC 1244 , relied on. 3. No statutory provision was pointed out the violation of which gave such right to the plaintiff that he had to be reinstated on finding that the dismissal was wrongful. The case in hand does not provide an exception to the general rule that a contract of personal service could not be specifically enforced. The cause of action in the instant case was not founded on a breach of the law as attracted the jurisdiction of the Court to enforce the obligations arising under such breach. The case in hand does not provide an exception to the general rule that a contract of personal service could not be specifically enforced. The cause of action in the instant case was not founded on a breach of the law as attracted the jurisdiction of the Court to enforce the obligations arising under such breach. Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Mohan Singh Thakur and another, 1973 JLJ 908, relied on. 4. Even if the termination of the services was in breach of the contract and was wrongful it did not give rise to a claim for specific performance of the contract of service. All that the plaintiff could claim was damages for the notice period but no such damages having been claimed or proved, the question for such relief does not arise. Appeal dismissed.