V. H. BHAIRAVIA, J : -, J. ( 1 ) THE present second appeal is directed against the judgmentand order dated 16-11-1981 passed by the learned Asstt. Judge. , Rajkot in civil Appeal No. 5/80 whereby the learned Asstt. Judge dismissed the said appeal filed by the appellant herein and confirmed the judgment and order dated 29-11-1979 passed by the learned civil Judge (S. D.) Rajkot in Regular Civil Suit no. 1145/76 whereby the learned Civil Judge has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff (appellant herein) for declaration in respect of legality and validity of removal order passed against her and of order of injunction. Plaintiff filed a suit in the court of the learned Civil Judge (S. D.) Rajkot for a declaration that she is a permanent teacher in the primary section and defendants be restrained from terminating her services as primary teacher, which came to be dismissed at stated above. Appeal preferred by her in the Court of the learned Asstt. Judge also came to be dismissed. Both the courts have held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that she was a permanent primary teacher and the protection under the Bombay primary Education Act, 1947 was not available to her. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT Nos. 1,2,4 and 5 are served but nobody appearson their behalf. Mr. B. D. Shukla, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 3 is absent though called out frequently and hence in his absence, this appeal is heard and disposed of on merits. ( 3 ) THE short question involved in this appeal is whether the appellant, at the relevant time, was serving as teacher in primary section or was serving as a teacher in Bal Mandir ? ( 4 ) RESPONDENT-DEFENDANT is a registered trust running primary and secondary school in the city of Rajkot. The plaintiff-appellant came to be appointed as Asstt. Teacher in the Primary Section by the appointment order dated 1-6-1969. Plaintiff was made permanent by the order dated 6-8-1973 (Exh. 43 ). It has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant that as the plaintiff appellant was not being paid full salary, she made a complaint to Administrative Officer, primary Education, Rajkot Nagarpalika and, therefore, she has been victimised and wrongly removed from the service. Plaintiff was made permanent by the order dated 6-8-1973 (Exh. 43 ). It has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant that as the plaintiff appellant was not being paid full salary, she made a complaint to Administrative Officer, primary Education, Rajkot Nagarpalika and, therefore, she has been victimised and wrongly removed from the service. Both the courts have taken view that the plaintiff was not a permanent teacher in the primary section but she was teacher in Bal Mandir run by the respondent trust. For reaching this conclusion, both the courts have relied on the oral evidence of the defendants witnesses ignoring the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff at Exhs. 41 and 43. Services of the plaintiff came to be terminated by the order dated 14-12-1976 (Exh. 34) without any notice. ( 5 ) I have perused appointment order (Exh. 41) and order making plaintiff permanent (Exh. 43 ). The simple question to be decided in this appeal is whether in view of the orders at Exhs. 41 and 43, the plaintiff, at the relevant time, was serving as primary Teacher or was serving as a Teacher in bal Mandir. Exhs. 41 and 43 are not disputed by the respondents. Order Exh. 43 clearly states that she has been working since 1-6-1969 in primary section and has been made pemanent by the order 6-8-1973 (Exh. 43 ). Thus, the order, Exh. 43 clearly reveals that the plaintiff was a teacher serving in the primary section and, therefore, she was primary teacher. In my view, the courts below have committed an error in appreciating these documents (Exhs. 41 and 43) which clearly support the plaintiffs case. It seems that the courts below were much impressed by the admission of the plaintiff made in her cross-examination that she was in Bal Mandir at the time of appointment but have failed to consider her first version that in the event of absence of any teacher in Bal Mandir, she was used to take class in Bal mandir and it is quite possible that on the date of her termination, she might have taken classes in bal Mandir. It does not mean that she was teacher of Bal Mandir. This court cannot shut eyes towards the clear documentary evidence Exh. 43 which supports the claim of the plaintiff that she was permanent primary teacher. It does not mean that she was teacher of Bal Mandir. This court cannot shut eyes towards the clear documentary evidence Exh. 43 which supports the claim of the plaintiff that she was permanent primary teacher. In my view, both the courts below have committed blunder in holding otherwise and, therefore, the judgment and order passed by the learned Civil Judge (S. D.) Rajkot and confirmed by learned Asstt. Judge, Rakot, requires to be quashed and set aside and the present appeal requires to be allowed. ( 6 ) APPEAL is allowed. The judgment and order dated 16-11-1989 passed by the learned Asstt. Judge, Rajkot in Reg. Civil Appeal No. 5/80 confirming the judgment and order dated 29-11- 1979 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S. D.) rajkot in Reg. Civil Suit No. 1145/76 dismissing the said suit, is hereby quashed and set aside. It is hereby declared that the order of termination dated 14-12-1976 (Exh. 34) terminating the services of the plaintiff-appellant is illegal, improper and is hereby quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to reinstate the appellant-plaintiff on her original post within the period of fortnight from the date of the receipt of the writ of this order with all consequential benefits like continuity of service and payment of back wages, etc. Respondents are directed to pay a back wages within four weeks from the date of reinstatement of the plaintiff in service. Appeal is allowed accordingly with costs. .