JUDGMENT : A.N.Varma, J. 1. This is defendants' second appeal arising out of a suit for declaration that the order dated 26-2-80 passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ballia directing the plaintiff management to allow the defendant no. 1 (appellant in this appeal) to work as a teacher and to pay his salary as usual till the conclusion of the criminal proceedings pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate 2 Ballia is null and void as well as for permanent injunction restraining the appellant from enforcing the aforesaid order dated 26-2-1980. Both the courts below have decreed the suit. Aggrieved, the defendant no. 1 has filed this second appeal. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the courts below have committed a patent illegality in holding that his alleged dismissal by the Committee of Management was not justiceable inasmuch as according to them the relationship between the appellant and the Management was purely contractual in nature. Learned counsel also submitted that the order passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari directing the Management to continue to pay salary to the appellant until the decision of the criminal case pending against him was perfectly within the jurisdiction of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari in view of the provisions of the U. P. Junior High School (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and others Employees) Rules, 1978. In order to appreciate this contention, it will be necessary to set out certain minimum facts. The appellant was employed as a teacher in a Junior High School the affairs of which were being managed by a Committee of Management in accordance with the relevant statutes. The committee of Management by its resolution dated 24-1-1979 however, dismissed him from service whereupon, he made representations before the Basic Shiksha Adhikari against the dismissal as well as the stoppage of salary. It appears while correspondence was going on between the Basic Shiksha Adhikari and the Management, it was brought to the notice of the former that a criminal case had been instituted and was pending against the appellant under section 323/325 IPC whereupon without pronouncing on the complaint of the appellant, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari passed the order dated 26-2-1980, presumably as an interim measure, directing the Management to pay salary to the petitioner until the disposal of the criminal case. 3. 3. It is this order which has been assailed by the Management in the suit. The ground upon which the suit was filed was that the Basic Shiksha Adhikari had no jurisdiction to issue such a direction to the Management as well as the appellant had already been dismissed from service and that order had neither been set aside nor adjudged void. 4. Both the courts below have decreed the suit holding that the Basic Shiksha Adhikari had no power to issue such a direction or to thrust the appellant on the Management inasmuch as the relationship between the appellant and the Management was purely contractual in nature and that if the appellant felt aggrieved by the action of the Management the only relief he could claim was by way of compensation/damages. It is apparent that the view taken by the courts below that the relationship between the appellant and the Management was purely contractual is unsustainable in law. The terms and conditions of services of teachers are regulated by statutes including the U. P. Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers Rules, 1978. The teachers of such institution enjoy a status and their employment could be brought about end to only by action which is taken in accordance with those rules. The courts below have, however, made no effort to examine whether the dismissal of the appellant was in accordance with law probably because they were of the opinion that it could not go into that question. 5. It is apparent that if the appellant's dismissal was contrary to the statutory rules of service the Basic Shiksha Adhikari would be perfectly competent to issue such a direction as is incorporated in the order dated 26-2-80 and in that event the suit will have to be dismissed. On the contrary, if the termination of employment of the appellant was in accordance with law, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari shall have no jurisdiction to direct the Management to pay salary to the appellant after the termination of his employment. 6. The lower appellate court should, therefore, examine these issues afresh. Another aspect which should be examined by the lower appellate court is whether the order dated 26-2-80 has not ceased to be operative in view of the subsequent events, namely, the reported conviction of the appellant in the aforesaid criminal case. 6. The lower appellate court should, therefore, examine these issues afresh. Another aspect which should be examined by the lower appellate court is whether the order dated 26-2-80 has not ceased to be operative in view of the subsequent events, namely, the reported conviction of the appellant in the aforesaid criminal case. It is apparent that if those proceedings have culminated in the conviction of the appellant that order shall cease to be operative. 7. Though the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below suffer from the same errors pointed out above, in view of the fact that the suit has been pending for a long time, the interest of justice would be best served if the case is sent back to the lower appellate court rather than the trial court for being disposed of in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this judgment. 8. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and decrees passed by the lower appellate court are set aside. The case is remanded to the lower appellate court for being disposed of in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made herein above. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs of this appeal. The record of the case shall be sent down to the Court below forthwith. The appeal filed by the appellant may be disposed of by the lower appellate court within two months of the date on which the record of the case is received by the court below and a copy of this judgment is filed before it by the appellant, A copy of this judgment may be given to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of requisite charges within a week. Appeal allowed.