Short Note : 1. Plaintiff's case was that he was in the services of Jagannath Education Society, Chhindwara as a lecturer in the School run by it. According to him, his services were terminated by an order dated 1-6-1966 (Ex. P-I) passed by the then Secretary of the Society. That order was without authority as the Managing Committee of the Society alone was competent to terminate his services. The resolution of the Managing Committee was passed on 29-3-1967 (Ex. P-13) by approving the earlier order passed by the Secretary. He therefore, challenged the termination of his services as illegal and prayed for declaration that he may be deemed to have continued in service and further entitled to arrears of salary amounting to Rs 5,580. The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff. But in appeal filed by the defendants, the lower appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court to the extent it related to the relief of declaration holding inter alia, that such a declaration could not have been granted in favour of the plaintiff as the matter would be governed by the relationship of master and servant and in that case the servant on his wrongful dismissal could only claim damages. Held: Having heard learned counsel of the parties, this Court is of opinion that the appeal has no merit and it must be dismissed. The first contention of the learned counsel for the defendants was that the date for the wrongful order of termination would be 1-6-1966 when the order was passed by the Secretary of the Society and not 29-3-1967 when finally the said order was approved by the Managing Committee. In this connection, it was contended that the Secretary of the Society was acting as an agent of the Managing Committee of the Society. That being so, in view of the provisions of section 196 of the Contract Act his act would be deemed to be that of the Society if subsequently the Society ratified the order passed by him It would suffice to mention here that the case of agency was not pleaded at all in the written statement or anywhere before the Courts below. This Court is therefore, not prepared to permit learned counsel for the defendants to plead the Same for the first time in this Court that the Secretary of the Society was acting as an agent of the Managing Committee. Even in the memo of appeal filed in this Court no such ground has been taken. That being so, the contention is rejected. The damages to be assessed for the wrongful dismissal would be by reference to the amount earned in the service wrongfully terminated and the time likely to elapse before the servant obtains another post for which he fitted. In the present case, the evidence on record does not show that the plaintiff secured any job within three months after the termination of his services. It has, therefore, to be held that the Managing Committee of the Society alone had the authority to terminate the services of the plaintiff and it was done by the resolution dated 29-3-1967 terminating the services with effect from 30-6-1966. That being so, the plaintiff would be entitled to claim damages to compensate him for the wrong sustained by him for the period 1-6-1966 to 30-6-1967. In this view of the matter, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the finding of the lower appellate Court about the determination of quantum of damages. S.S. Shethy v. Bharat Nidhi Ltd., AIR 1958 SC 12 relied on. As regards the cross-objection filed by the plaintiff, that also fails for the reason that he cannot claim a declaration to continue in the service of the Society. All that he can claim is such damages as will compensate him for the wrong that he has sustained. Sirsi Municipality v. Cecclia Kom Francis Telles, AIR 1973 SC 855 . relied on Appeal dismissed.