JUDGMENT - R.K. BATTA, J.:---The appellant had filed a suit for reinstatement and/or compensation by way of damages. The claim for reinstatement was rejected. However, compensation to the tune of Rs. 35,711.40 corresponding to 18 months salary with 6% interest was ordered to be paid to the appellant. This judgment dated 29th May, 1992 is impugned by the respondents by filing First Appeal No. 8/1993. The appellant filed Cross Objections. The appeal filed by the respondents was dismissed since the respondents did not comply with the requirement of Rule 12(V) and (VI) of Chapter IX of the Appellate Side Rules, 1960. Therefore, the Cross Objections filed by the appellant are required to be dealt with in this judgment. 2.The appellant is M.A. in Marathi and B.Ed. in Sanskrit. He was appointed as Assistant Teacher in respondent's School in 1964/65. He was promoted to the post of Headmaster two years later. This School imparted education through Marathi medium. In the year 1973 classes in English Medium were introduced as it was found that the strength of the Marathi medium classes was slowly dwindling and that the Marathi Medium Classes will have to be closed down in the next seven to eight years. In the year 1977 with the consent of the Inspector of Schools two separate Schools were carved out from the existing School namely English Medium School and Marathi Medium School. The final batch of S.S.C. students in the Marathi Medium School appeared in the year 1981/82 and thereafter the Marathi Medium School was discontinued. For a period of two years between 1975 to 1977 the services of the appellant were disrupted on account of his detention under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act. After his detention the appellant resumed his duties in June, 1977 as Headmaster of Marathi Medium School. In the meantime in the year 1975 one Shri Raiturkar was appointed as Headmaster of the School and on joining by the appellant in June, 1977, the said Raiturkar was made Headmaster of the English Medium School. By Notice dated 5th July, 1982 the services of the appellant were terminated on the ground of closure of the Marathi High School for want of students from the commencement of the academic year 7-6-1982. Notice of three months with effect from 7-10-82 was given to the appellant vide the said termination letter dated 5th July, 1982. By Notice dated 5th July, 1982 the services of the appellant were terminated on the ground of closure of the Marathi High School for want of students from the commencement of the academic year 7-6-1982. Notice of three months with effect from 7-10-82 was given to the appellant vide the said termination letter dated 5th July, 1982. The appellant had filed a representation against the order of termination before the Director of Education which was dismissed on 13-8-82. In the meantime the appellant took employment with Dada Vaidya High School in June 1983 as Headmaster. This School is said to be English medium School. Thereafter on 6-4-95 the appellant filed the suit in question. 3. The contention of the appellant that no two Schools as claimed by the Management existed was rejected by the learned District Judge who found that there was evidence on record that from 1977 onwards there were two separate Schools run by the Management being one under the name of Shri Damodar Vidyalaya English High School and the other Shri Damodar Vidyalaya Marathi High School. In view of the said findings, the learned District Judge held that in view of Rule 74.7 of the Grant-in-Aid Code the appellant was entitled to 18 months salary only. Accordingly, while dismissing the claim of the appellant for reinstatement, compensation of Rs.35,711.40 corresponding to 18 months salary with 6% interest was granted. The appellant's claim for absorption in the English School was rejected. 4.Learned Advocate Shri M.B.D' Costa, appearing on behalf of the appellant, took us through the evidence on record and the relevant provisions which govern the controversy in the suit. He submitted before us that except for approval relating to two Schools granted by the Inspector of Schools vide order dated 27-6-77, there is no other material on record to justify the stand taken by the Management which was accepted by the learned District Judge that there are in fact two different Schools in existence. His contention is that the School was one, but there were two sections in the same School namely Marathi medium and English medium. His contention is that the School was one, but there were two sections in the same School namely Marathi medium and English medium. He, therefore, pointed out that no separate record of the two Schools were maintained, but the records continued to be maintained jointly; that all employees except the appellant were absorbed from time to time in the English medium School, whereas the appellant's services were terminated by way of punishment without having recourse to the relevant provisions of the Grant-in-Aid Code. He also tried to rebut the stand of the Management that the employees of the Marathi medium who were absorbed in the English medium were taken as juniors to all the existing employees in the cadre, but his contention is that they were not only given seniority but also Selection Grade on the strength of their past services. According to the learned Advocate for the appellant, the case of the appellant would fall under Rule 74.5 of the Grant-in-Aid Code which Rule was in fact correctly reflected in the order of termination dated 5th July, 1982, and the learned District Judge was in error in applying. Rule 74.7 to the case of the appellant by awarding only 18 months salary. It was also pointed out by him that even if it is accepted that Rule 74.7 was applicable to the case of the appellant, the appellant was entitled to be absorbed in the English medium School in terms of Rule 77.7(iii) of the Grant-in Aid Code. According to him the appellant has been singled out and has been punished without conducting any inquiry as contemplated under the Grant-in-Aid Code. In the Cross Objections the appellant claims a sum of Rs. 1,47,565.65 with interest on account of difference in the salary which he would have got in the respondent's School had his services not been terminated and the salary which he is getting in the School where he was working was from 1983. 5.On the other hand, learned Advocate Shri S.S. Kantak has drawn our attention to the evidence of the appellant himself before the learned District Judge wherein the appellant had admitted that there were two Headmasters in the School from 1977, that is to say, the appellant was Headmaster of Marathi Medium School and one Raiturkar was Headmaster of English Medium School. He also drew our attention to the Bills prepared by the appellant himself for the Marathi Medium School as well as letter dated 27th June, 1977 from which date two different Schools are in existence. He also submitted that notice of termination dated 5th July, 1982, clearly states that the services of the appellant have been terminated because of closure of the Marathi High School for want of student's from the commencement of the academic year with effect from 7-6-82. He therefore submits that the learned District Judge had rightly held that the provisions applicable to the case of the appellant was Rule 74.7 of the Grant-in-Aid Code, and, as such, the Cross Objections filed by the appellant are liable to be dismissed. 6.In order to appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to note down the provisions of Rule 74.5 and Rule 74.7 of the Grant-in-Aid Code which read as under:- "Rule 74.5- Reduction in Establishment.---(i) In cases of reduction in establishment permitted by the Director of Education owing to the reduction in number of classes, or a fall in the number of pupils affecting certain category of teachers, or closure of a course of studies, the management may terminate the service of employees after giving due notice which shall be one calendar month in case of non-permanent employees and three calendar months in case of permanent employees; or after paying the salary (pay and allowances, if any) for respective notice period, in lieu of the notice subject to Rule 74.1(3). The salary, in lieu of notice, paid to the employees under this sub-Rule shall not be admissible for grants. (ii) In case of termination of employment under Rule 74.5 (i) above, the Junior most employee shall be retrenched. (iii) If for any special, bonafide reason, a senior member of the staff is proposed to be retrenched, when a junior member ought to have been retrenched, the management shall refer the case to the Director of Education with a copy endorsed to the employee concerned for his acknowledgement and as a notice under Rule 74.5 (i). The Director of Education shall refer the case to the Dispute Settlement Committee as constituted under Rule 74.2(ii) above for its decision. The Director of Education shall refer the case to the Dispute Settlement Committee as constituted under Rule 74.2(ii) above for its decision. (iv) The Disputes Settlement Committee shall consider the written statements, if any; submitted by either or both the parties and give its decision within fifteen days of the date of the receipt of reference of the case to it. (v) The decision of the Dispute Settlement Committee communicated through the Director of Education, shall be final and binding on both the parties. (vi) If the posts so rendered vacant are revived or additional posts are created or vacancy arises within a period of one year, the employee/employees retrenched shall be given an opportunity first to rejoin the services in school and he/they shall be restored to his/their original position in pay as seniority. (vii) If no written reply is received from the employee within a fortnight from the date of the acknowledgement of the offer made by the management in terms of Rule 74.5(vi) or in case of refusal to receive such an offer made by the management under the registered letter (AD), the management reopening of the school or through the opening of shall be free to fill otherwise the post/posts. For this purpose the addresses of the retrenched employees shall be registered by the management in the school before they are relieved." Rule 74.7- Closure of Schools.---(i) Management shall not close down a school or transfer the same to another management without giving six months' notice to the Government and Goa, Daman and Diu Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary, as well as to the employees, clear of May Vacation. (ii) If no notice as per Rule 74.7 (i) above, is given to the employees, they shall be given, in lieu of notice, one month's salary (pay and allowances, if any) for each completed year of service, subject to a minimum of three months' salary (pay and allowances, if any) in case of permanent employees; and a minimum of one month's salary (pay and allowances, if any) in case of non-permanent employees. (iii) If posts so rendered vacant due to the closure of the school are revived, either through the re-opening of the school or through the opening of a new school by the same management, then the provisions of Rule 74.5(v) and (vii) shall be complied with. (iii) If posts so rendered vacant due to the closure of the school are revived, either through the re-opening of the school or through the opening of a new school by the same management, then the provisions of Rule 74.5(v) and (vii) shall be complied with. (iv) In case of transfer of a school to a new management, the service conditions of the existing employees shall not be altered to their disadvantage and the existing employees shall be deemed to be in the employ of the new management under the same terms and conditions on which they were appointed by the outgoing management. Seniority and the pay of such employees shall be protected and their scales of pay shall not be altered to their disadvantage." 7.In the suit as originally filed by the appellant, reinstatement was sought and in the alternative compensation equal to 18 months salary amounting to Rs. 35,711.40 was sought to be recovered. Besides this, the appellant had also claimed a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation for physical and mental hardship, suffering, strain, loss of prestige in the eyes of the public, agony, pain, etc. The plaint was filed in April, 1985. In the year 1989 the appellant deleted the alternative prayer for 18 months salary and instead sought recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,47,565.65 as the difference in salary which he would have earned had his services not been terminated minus the salary which he started earning in Dada Vaidhya High School. 8.The entire controversy in the suit related to the question as to whether two Schools had come into existence from the year 1977 or that there was only one School having two divisions namely English medium division and Marathi medium division. The existence of the two Schools was sought to be proved by the Management by virtue of approval granted by the Inspector of Schools vide letter dated 27-6-77. This letter was with reference to the letter of the Management, whereby the Inspector of Schools had informed the Management that they may have two separate Schools one in English and the other in Marathi medium and that records and registers including accounts should be maintained for both the Schools. This letter was with reference to the letter of the Management, whereby the Inspector of Schools had informed the Management that they may have two separate Schools one in English and the other in Marathi medium and that records and registers including accounts should be maintained for both the Schools. Even though the registers appeared to have been maintained in common, yet the learned District Judge found that there was ample evidence on record to come to the conclusion that two Schools were in fact in existence from 1977 i.e. Damodar Vidyalaya English High School and Damodar Vidyalaya Marathi High School. In fact, this conclusion which is arrived at by the learned District Judge is based upon the material on record which includes the deposition of the appellant himself. 9.After the appellant was released from detention under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, in the year 1977 he was put in charge of the Marathi School and Shri Raiturkar was kept in charge of the English School. It may be mentioned here that when the appellant was detained under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, in the year 1975, Shri Raiturkar had been appointed as Headmaster for the School. The evidence of the appellant himself before the District Court shows that there did exist two Schools with effect from 1977. The appellant himself stated that when he resumed his duty on 1-7-77, the Management instead of installing him as Headmaster of the whole School, made a bifurcation of the School calling the Marathi section as Marathi Medium School and the English section as English Medium School. The Management asked him to look after Marathi Medium School as Headmaster and the said Shri Raiturkar was made Headmaster of the English Medium School. Later the appellant tried to explain that in fact it was only Marathi Medium section and English Medium section and not Schools as such. The appellant admitted in his deposition before the learned District Judge that for the purpose of obtaining grants for teachers and staff monthly bills of salaries of teachers and staff were sent to the Zonal Office of the Education Department; that as Headmaster he was one of the signatories to such bills; that they were submitting every month two separate bills one for Marathi Medium School and the other for English Medium School. He admitted his signatures on the bill for the month of March, 1982 and also admitted that the bill was submitted in the name of "Shri Damodar Vidhyalaya Marathi High School, Margao, Goa". He also admitted that likewise separate bill was submitted in respect of the Teachers and Staff working in the English Medium School. This evidence of the appellant coupled with approval granted by the Inspector of Schools does establish that from the year 1977 there were two separate Schools which were being run by the Management i.e. Damodar Vidhyalaya English High School and Damodar Vidhyalaya Marathi High School. 10.It was in this background that when the Marathi School was sought to be closed, the letter of termination dated 5th July, 1982 was served on the appellant. In this letter, it was clearly stated that the Marathi School of which the appellant was Headmaster has been closed for want of students from the commencement of the academic year 7-6-82 and his services were terminated under Rule 74.5. There is obviously a mistake in quoting Rule 74.5 in view of the contents of that letter wherein it was stated the Marathi High School had been closed and, in fact, the Rule which is applicable to the situation under consideration, as rightly held by learned District Judge is Rule 74.7. In fact, the appellant had understood that order very correctly himself and that is why in the plaint as originally filed, he had in the alternative claimed for salary of 18 months. However, subsequently, the appellant deleted the alternative prayer and sought difference in the salary to the tune of Rs. 1,47,565.65. 11.Learned Advocate Shri M.B. D'Costa, urged before us that if Rule 74.7 is applied to the case under consideration, the appellant was entitled to be considered for absorption in the English Medium School in terms of Rule 74.7(iii) of the Grant-in-Aid Code. In our view, the said rule upon which reliance has been placed by learned Advocate Shri D'Costa, would not be attracted to the facts and circumstances of this case since no new School was reopened by the Management and the English Medium School had already come into existence with effect from 1977. If a new School had been opened by the Management after closure of the Marathi School, then probably the appellant was required to be considered for the purpose of being accommodated in the new School. If a new School had been opened by the Management after closure of the Marathi School, then probably the appellant was required to be considered for the purpose of being accommodated in the new School. The deposition of the appellant also indicates further that the appellant was not willing to be considered in the English Medium School as Teacher but he was insisting on his absorption as Headmaster of the English School which obviously could not be acceded to by the Management. 12.The Marathi School having been closed, there was no question of reinstatement of the appellant and, as such, the learned District Judge had rightly declined the prayer of the appellant for reinstatement. However, in view of the fact that the learned District Judge found that the termination of the appellant was under Rule 74.7 and six months notice as required thereunder had not been given to the appellant, the appellant was entitled to salary of 18 months at the rate of one calendar month for each completed year of service in terms of Rule 74.7(ii) of the Grant-in-Aid Code. The learned District Judge therefore decreed the suit to the tune of Rs. 35,711.40 which corresponds to 18 months salary with 6% interest. The claim of the appellant for payment of Rs. 1,47,565.65 as difference in the salary was therefore rightly rejected by the learned District Judge. 13.For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the Cross Objection and the Cross Objection is hereby rejected with no order as to costs. Cross Objection rejected without costs. *****