JUDGMENT A.N. Verma, J. - This petition by a defendant in a civil suit is directed against concurrent orders passed by the courts below disposing of a preliminary issue relating to the territorial jurisdiction of the court against the petitioner. 2. These are the facts, Sheo Bhushan Tripathi, respondent no I, a former teacher in the Kendriya Vidhyalaya (Central School) Azamgarh filed a suit no. 500 of 1976 in the court of the learned Munsif City, Azamgarh for a declaration than an order of dismissal dated 1-5-1976 passed against him by the Assistant Commissioner of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sansathan, Lucknow Region, Lucknow was null and void, and that the plaintiff still continued in service as a teacher. The petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, New Delhi who was arrayed as a defendant in the said suit, filed a written statement and raised a plea that the court at Azamgarh had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of a term in the contract of service of respondent no. 1 to the effect that in the event of a dispute arising between a teacher of a Central School and the aforesaid Sangathan, the courts at Delhi alone shall have jurisdiction to decide that dispute. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed by the trial court. Issue no. 3 read as follows :- "Whether the court has no jurisdiction to try this suit?" This issue was tried as a preliminary issue by the trial court and was answered against the petitioner. 3. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court on the preliminary issue, the petitioner filed a Revision before the learned District Judge, Azamgarh. but without any success. The learned District Judge, in agreement with the trial court, held that there was no contract between the plaintiff to file the suit only at Delhi. 4. Both in the courts below as in course of arguments before me, it was conceded on behalf of the petitioner that having regard to the fact that the cause of action upon. which the suit is based, has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Azamgarh, the suit was clearly cognisable by courts at Azamgarh. However, the stand taken by the petitioner is that in view of the terms of service of respondent no. which the suit is based, has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Azamgarh, the suit was clearly cognisable by courts at Azamgarh. However, the stand taken by the petitioner is that in view of the terms of service of respondent no. , and further in view of the decision taken by the Governors of the Kendriya Vidhyalaya Sangathan, which is the body charged with the responsibility of managing and administering the Central Schools to the effect that any dispute arising out of or in respect of an employee of the Sansthan, the courts at Delhi alone shall have jurisdiction, the suit could be taken cognizance of only by the courts at, Delhi. Inasmuch as, the petitioner has its registered office at Delhi, it is obvious that the suit could be filed by the plaintiff also in the courts at Delhi. 5. However, the question is whether there is in existence a binding contract between the plaintiff and the defendant making it obligatory for the plaintiff to file the suit only in courts at Delhi. 6. In order to appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to say a few words about the organisational set up of these Kendriya Vidyalayas (Central Schools). 7. With a view to providing adequate educational facilities for the children of defence person and transferable Government servants the Government of India decided to establish Central Schools called Kendriya Vidyalayas at different places in the country having heavy concentration of transferable .Central Government employees including the defence personnel. In order to run and manage the Central Schools, the Government set up an organisation called Kendriya Sangathan consisting inter alia of the Minister of State of Education as its Chairman. Pursuant to this scheme, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan was registered as a society under the Societies Registration Act in the year 1965. 8. Rules in the nature of first statutes were framed for regulating the affairs of the organisation and the management of the Central Schools proposed to be run under it. The Chief Executive Body of this Organisation is the Board of Governor which is charged with the responsibility of carrying out the objects of the Sansathan as set forth in the Memorandum of Association. The Chief Executive Body of this Organisation is the Board of Governor which is charged with the responsibility of carrying out the objects of the Sansathan as set forth in the Memorandum of Association. The Board of Governors has been invested with the powers generally to carry out the objects of the Sansathan as set forth in the Memorandum of Association as well a to manage all the affairs, and to exercise all the powers of the sansathan. The Board has been given the power to frame regulations consistent with the Rules of the Sansathan. These powers include the power to lay down the procedure for the recruitment of teachers of the Central Schools as well as to lay down the terms and condition of service of these teachers In the exercise of these powers, tit Board has prescribed a pro form a of the offers of appointment for the posts of teachers and non-leaching staff of the Central Schools. Appendix IX to the Education Code of the Kendriya Vidyalayas (1970 Edition) lays down the terms of offer of appointment for the posts of Teachers. Annexure "1" to the sard appendix is the pro form a of acceptance of the offer of appointment. Upon a candidate being selected for appointment as a teacher on the terms mentioned in the said offer of appointment and upon the acceptance of the said offer, a contract of service comes into being, 9. In pursuance of the aforesaid procedure prescribed by the Board, the plaintiff in the present case was offered an appointment as a primary teacher. A true copy of the offer has been annexed to the writ petition and marked "V". The petitioner accepted the said terms and was appointed as a primary teacher at the Central School Azamgarh in the year 1972. He joined the service on 16-8-1972 in pursuance of the said offer of appointment dated 24-7-1972. Paragrahp 2 of the aforesaid offer of appointment is relevant and it reads as follows :- "The services of the appointee are terminable by one months notice on either side, without any reasons being assigned. The appointing authority, however, reserves the right of terminating the services before the expiry of the stipulated period of notice by making payment to the appointee of a sum equivalent to the pay and allowance for the period of notice or the unexpired portion thereof. The appointing authority, however, reserves the right of terminating the services before the expiry of the stipulated period of notice by making payment to the appointee of a sum equivalent to the pay and allowance for the period of notice or the unexpired portion thereof. Other terms and conditions of service governing the appointment are as laid down in the Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalayas, as amended from time to time. He/She will be liable to transferred anywhere in India." 10. It was conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that until the appointment of respondent no. 1 laying down that the courts at Delhi alone shall have jurisdiction to try 'a suit in respect of a dispute arising out of the service contract of the petitioner. 11. The petitioner, however, relies mainly on a decision taken by the Board of Governors at its meeting held on 2-62-76, which provides that the following sentence should be incorporated in all offers of appointments, all contracts and in all matters pertaining to admissions in Kendriya Vidyalays :- "In case of any dispute or claim against the Sangathan the courts at Delhi alone have jurisdiction to decide any dispute arising out of or in respect of service or any other contract." (See Annexure "S. I" to the rejoinder-affidavit item no. 11). 12. Counsel submitted that the above decision became a part of the contract of service of the petitioner in terms of his order of appointment. It was further urged that the above decision became a part of the Education Code and was, therefore, binding on the petitioner. 13. Before the learned District Judge also, the aforesaid decision of the Board was pleaded as providing a bar to the jurisdiction of Courts at Azamgarh to take cognizance of the suit, but the learned District Judge repelled that argument on the ground that the said decision of the Board would apply only to contracts of service, which may be entered into after the decision of the Board. 14. In order to appreciate the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be useful to set out the background in which the aforesaid decision was taken by the Board. 14. In order to appreciate the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be useful to set out the background in which the aforesaid decision was taken by the Board. A true copy of the notes which appear to have been circulated with the aganda for the meeting of the Board of Governors, which was scheduled for the 26th February, 1976, has been annexed to the rejoinder-affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner and the same is marked "S. 1". In these notes.it has been stated that under the relevant rules, the Deputy Commissioner of the Sansathan, who has his office at Delhi, is the principal officer (See Rule 21, Chapter II, page 6 of the aforesaid Education I Code), and that the Sansathan can sue and be sued in the name of the Deputy Commissioner. The said note then mention that in course of time, a large number of suits has been filed at different places throughout the country against the Saosathan making it difficult for the Deputy Commissioner to attend to all of them In paragraph 3 of the notes, it is further stated that considering that only the Deputy Commissioner is the party that can be sued, that his I offices are located in Delhi, and that it will be convenient for the Sansathan to I obtain the advice of the Sangathans Legal Advisor as well as of the Ministries of Education and Law, it would be expedient to include a sentence in the offer of appointment to all employees of the Sansathan as well as in contracts to the effect that in the even of any dispute arising out in respect of service and other contracts, the courts at Delhi alone shall have jurisdiction to entertain suits. On the basis of these notes and the deliberations which must have taken place at the meeting of 26-2-1976, the Board approved the incorporation of the sentence quoted above in the offers of appointment. 15. From the notice mentioned above, and from the minutes of the meeting pertaining to time no. On the basis of these notes and the deliberations which must have taken place at the meeting of 26-2-1976, the Board approved the incorporation of the sentence quoted above in the offers of appointment. 15. From the notice mentioned above, and from the minutes of the meeting pertaining to time no. 11, it seems obvious that the Board was anxious that in contracts of service which may be entered into in the future, there ought to be a stipulate that the courts at Delhi alone shall have jurisdiction to try the suit arising out of disputes relating to contracts entered into between the Organisation and its teachers. The decision seems to have been taken with a view to providing a safeguard in the future contracts so that the Organisation is not dragged into litigation at places other than Delhi. It does not appear that the Board intended to vary the existing contracts of service as well. At least, it has not said so. Indeed, it is doubtful whether legally the Board could do so unilaterally. 16. That it is only the contracts to be entered into in the future which were intended to be covered by the decision of the Board is also clear from the office letter issued by the Deputy Commissioner in pursuance of the said decision. A true copy of the said office letter has been annexed to the counter affidavit of Shiv Bhushan Tripathi as Annexure "B-1", the last paragraph of which is pertinent. It reads as follows : - "Necessary modifications are being made in the Education Code. Meanwhile, all authorities exercising any of the power for appointments by direct recruitment or promotion, any contracts and or admissions in Kendriya Vidyalayas will hence forward ensure that the above stipulation is inserted in every instrument agreed upon by him". (Emphasis supplied.) 17. The above observations made in the office of the Deputy Commissioner leave no manner of doubt that it is only the future contracts which were intended to be covered by the said decision of the Board. In my judgment, the Board was anxious that in future, all suits filed by or against the organisation I must be instituted at Delhi so that they could be effectively and properly looked after. From the facts mentioned above, it is clear that the Board has suggested incorporation of a sentence in . In my judgment, the Board was anxious that in future, all suits filed by or against the organisation I must be instituted at Delhi so that they could be effectively and properly looked after. From the facts mentioned above, it is clear that the Board has suggested incorporation of a sentence in . the offer of appointment so that the future appointees are bound down by the terms as regards jurisdiction of the court within which disputes could be taken to. Appendix IX to the aforesaid Code lays down the pro forma of the offers of appointment. The Board has merely suggested an incorporation of the aforesaid sentence in the said proforma. 18. Furthermore, an offer of appointment must necessarily refer to contracts which are still to be made. An offer of appointment after its acceptance ceases to be an offer. It merges and is transformed into a completed contract after its acceptance. There can, therefore, be no question of making alterations in the terms of offer in the case of contracts which have already been completed or entered into. The holder of an appointment enters into the service upon the terms and conditions actually offered, though he may covenant to be bound by the provisions in the Code as amended from time to time. There are yet no provisions in the Code, whether amended or unamended, relating to the jurisdiction of the court in which the disputes between the parties may be taken. Counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that the Code has not been amended till now, though he made a faint attempt to argue that the decision of the Board should be deemed to have become a part of Code. He was, however, unable to substantiate this argument. I am not persuaded that a mere decision of the Board by itself gets automatically incorporated in the Code or becomes part of it. 19. In any case, the Board has not approved of amendment of any existing Rules The Code stands as it was. The Board has only suggested incorporation of a clause in the offer of appointment which, is very different from amenument of the Rules themselves. The Rules cannot be amended without the concurrence of the Union Government. 20. 19. In any case, the Board has not approved of amendment of any existing Rules The Code stands as it was. The Board has only suggested incorporation of a clause in the offer of appointment which, is very different from amenument of the Rules themselves. The Rules cannot be amended without the concurrence of the Union Government. 20. The result of the aforesaid discussion, therefore, is that there is neither any provision in ,the Code, nor in the terms of contract of service of respondent no. 1, which may have provided that the courts at Delhi alone shall have jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The decision taken by the courts below, therefore, that the courts at Azamgarh to have jurisdiction to try the suit is correct, and is affirmed. 21. There now remains to be considered another argument of counsel for the petitioner. It was urged that the office order of the Deputy Commissioner referred to above had been communicated to respondent no. 1 and that, therefore, it must be presumed that the suggested change in the offer of appointment had also become apart of the term of the contract of service of respondent no. 1. Counsel submitted that the respondent no. 1 had in token of the acceptance of the said change in the offer of appointment put his signature on the copy of the office order of the Deputy Commissioner sent to the Kendriya Vidyalaya at Azamgarh. I find it difficult to accept this argument. By merely making an employee aware of a change in the term of the offer of employment, the employee cannot be said to have assented to the change in the terms of his existing contract of service In my opinion, therefore, the contract of service entered into by respondent no. 1 was not altered and the aforesaid change suggested in the offer of employment never became part of his contract of service. 22. In the result, tie petition fails and is dismissed with costs. The trial court is directed to dispose of the suit filed by respondent no. 1 expeditiously. as the suit has been pending for a considerable length of time.