S. K. SETH, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition, the defendant No. 1 Balco Shiksban samiti seeks review of order dated 2-4-1991 passed by this Court in M. A. No. 187/90 while disposing of the said appeal. ( 2 ) THE relevant facts, giving rise to the above said miscellaneous appeal briefly stated, are as follows : the plaintiffs were employed as teachers in the institutions run by the defendent No. I/society. The said institutions did not received any grant-in aid from the State Government. Apprehending termination of their employment, they instituted a suit against the Society in November 1989 claiming that in the facts and circumstances of the case their services deserved to be regularised and the defendant No. 1 Society was liable to be restrained from putting an end to their employment. In the said suit, they also made an application for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. In view of the said application, the trial Court, at first, granted an ex-parte temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs on 27-11 1989 directing the defendant No. 1 Society to maintain the status quo until further orders. However, later on, the said Court, after hearing both the parties, vacated the said ex-parte temporary injunction vide its order dated 23-4-1990. ( 3 ) THIS Court, after hearing both the parties, vide its order dated 2-4-1991, passed in M. A. No. 187/90 allowed the said appeal and se taside the order dated 23-4-1090 passed by the trial Court. Instead, it allowed the application made by the plaintiffs for grant of temporary injunction under order 39, Rules 1 and 2,. C. P. C. restrained the defendant No. 1 Society from putting and end to the employment of all the plaintiffs excepting twelve of them till the disposal of the suit by the trial Court. In respect of the said twelve plaintiffs, it directed that if within a period of one month from the date of the order any of them reports for duty to the Society, he/she shall be reinstated by it on his/her previous post w. e. f. the said date. ( 4 ) IT may be mentioned that while allowing the miscellaneous appeal filed by the plaintiffs and granting temporary injunction to the above said effect, this Court, in its order dated 2-4-1991, made a reference to Regulation no. ( 4 ) IT may be mentioned that while allowing the miscellaneous appeal filed by the plaintiffs and granting temporary injunction to the above said effect, this Court, in its order dated 2-4-1991, made a reference to Regulation no. 71 of the Regulations framed by the Board of Secondary Education, madhya Pradesh under Section 28 (2) (d) of the M. P. Madhyamik Shiksha adhiniyam, 1965. It was provided in the said Regulation that all Principal, head Masters, Lecturers and Teachers, except those appointed, temporarily for a period of less than one year, shall be on probation for a term of one year which may be extended to two years. It also provided that in after two years of service any incumbent is continued in his appointment, he shall, unless the appointing authority for reasons to be recorded in writing otherwise directs, be deemed to have been confirmed in that appointment. It further provided that on confirmation the incumbent shall sing a contract of service in the Form I or II as the case may be as soon as practicable. ( 5 ) THIS Court was of the opinion that enough material was placed by the plaintiffs before the trial Court for making it prima facie satisfied that their appointment had not been intended to be temporary for a period of less than one year. It was in the said circumstances that this Court came to the conclusion that as the provisions of Regulation 71 had clearly statutory force, there was no reason for the trial Court not to grant the prayer for temporary injunction made by the plaintiffs. This Court was further of the opinion that from the point of view of social justice, the balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiffs and it was apparent that they were bound to suffer an irreparable injury in case the temporary in junction as asked for was not granted to them. This Court was further of the opinion that from the point of view of social justice, the balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiffs and it was apparent that they were bound to suffer an irreparable injury in case the temporary in junction as asked for was not granted to them. ( 6 ) IN the present application for review, made by the defendant No. 1 society, it is tried to be argued by it that there was a mistake apparent on the face of this Court's order dated 2-4-1991 granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs inasmuch as there was no material placed by the plaintiffs before the trial Court on the basis of which the said Court could be prima facie satisfied that the appointments of the plaintiffs had not been intended to be temporary for a period of less than one year. Having hoard the learned counsel for the parties, in the opinion of this Court the, said argument of the learned counsel for the defendant No. 1 Society is clearly misconceived and devoid of any merit. ( 7 ) IT was an admitted position in the suit which gave rise to miscellaneous appeal in question that all the plaintiffs had been continuously employed as Teachers by the defendant No. 1 Society for years together excepting for short breaks. The documents tiled by both the parties in the suit also bore out the said factual position. Needless to say, the said fact was prima facie sufficient to satisfy the Court that though the appointments in question of the plaintiffs as teachers from time to time had been short spell appointments of less than one year the same were in fact not intended to be so and were intended to be regular appointments on probation for a term of more than one year attracting Regulation 71 of the above said regulations. ( 8 ) IN the above connection, it may be mentioned that the exploitation of members of teaching community for years together by keeping them in short spell appointments like those of less than one year as in the present case has been deprecated in no uncertain terms by the highest Court of the country time and again. ( 8 ) IN the above connection, it may be mentioned that the exploitation of members of teaching community for years together by keeping them in short spell appointments like those of less than one year as in the present case has been deprecated in no uncertain terms by the highest Court of the country time and again. The most recent observations made by the supreme Court in the said regard are contained in its decision dated 2-4-1991 in Sri Rabinarayan Mohapatra v. State of Orissa and others [civil Appeal No. 1396/91 which is reported as JT 1991 (2) S. C. 82 in Judgments Today]. It has been observed in the said decision that such short spell appointments have the effect of denying them their rightful dues and other service benefits. It has been pointed out that education is the dire need of the country. There are neither enough schools nor teachers to teach. Unsecurity is writ large on the face of the teaching community because of nabulous and unsatisfactory conditions of service. It has been stressed that in order to make the existing educational set up effective and efficient it is necessary to do away with adhocism in teaching appointments. ( 9 ) IN the opinion of this Court, the above said being the factual and legal position, the order dated 2-4-1991 passed by this Court in M. A. 187/90 granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs teachers did not suffer from any mistake apparent on the face of record as tried to be argued by the learned counsel for the defendant No. 1 Society. As pointed out by this Court in its order dated 2-4-1991 relying upon the decision of the supreme Court in Vidya Dhar Panday v. Vidyut Grih Shiksha Samiti [ air 1989 SC 341 ], the legal position was quite clear that the Regulations framed by the Board of Secondary Education Madhya Pradesh under Section 28 (2) (d) of the M. P. Madhyamik Shiksha Adhiaiyam, 1965 had statutory force the breach of which entitled the aggrieved employee to get a declaration that the act of termination from service by his employer was invalid and illegal and that the employer was liable to be restrained from giving effect to such act. ( 10 ) FOR the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the application made by the defendant No. 1 Society for review of order dated 2-4-1991 passed by this Court in M. A. No. 187/90. The application is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. Application dismissed, .