JUDGMENT : Tarun Agarwala, J. The plaintiffs filed a suit for a mandatory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their services as assistant teachers in C.T. Grade in the defendant's educational institution. The plaintiffs further prayed that the defendant be directed to pay the salary w.e.f. September, 1980 onwards. The plaintiffs alleged that they have been working as assistant teachers since 17.7.1978 and that they have been illegally removed by verbal order of the manager w.e.f, 29.12.1981. The plaintiffs further alleged that the defendant's institution was a recognized institution under the Basic Education Act and that the provision of Rule 11 of U. P. Recognised Basic Schools (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Other Conditions) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1975) are applicable, which stipulates that no teacher of a recognised school shall be dismissed or removed except by a prior approval in writing of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. The plaintiffs further alleged that they have not been paid their salary since September. 1980 and since their removal was in violation of Rule 11 of the Rules of 1975, they are entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction. 2. The defendant contested the suit and contended that the plaintiff No. 1 was appointed on a temporary basis on 17.7.1978 and thereafter, voluntarily left the services on 3.3.1979. The plaintiff No. 2 was appointed on a temporary basis on 17.7.1978 and voluntarily left the services on 20.6.1979. The defendant further contended that the plaintiff No. 2 was again appointed on a temporary basis w.e.f, 1.7.1979 and worked till 6.11.1979. It was further alleged that the plaintiff No. 1 was again appointed on a temporary basis on 10.9.1979 and he worked till 20.5.1980. The defendant further contended that the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 were again appointed on temporary basis on 1.7.1980 and that they worked till 20.5.1981 and thereafter, did not work as assistant teachers. In paragraph 4 of the written statement, the defendant contended that their educational institution was not recognised previously under the Basic Education Act and only recently the educational institution had been given recognition. In paragraph 5 of the written statement the defendant contended that Rule 11 of the Rules of 1975 was not applicable to the plaintiffs' case and that no previous approval was required from the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. In paragraph 5 of the written statement the defendant contended that Rule 11 of the Rules of 1975 was not applicable to the plaintiffs' case and that no previous approval was required from the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. The defendant contended that after 20.5.1981, the plaintiffs never worked and, therefore, the question of the removal of their services w.e.f, 29.12.1981 does not arise. 3. The trial court after framing the issues and after considering the evidence on record decreed the suit of the plaintiffs holding that the defendant's educational institution was a recognised institution and that the Rules of 1975 are applicable and that the defendant could not remove the plaintiffs unless prior approval from the Basic Shiksha Adhikari was obtained. The trial court further held that the services of the plaintiffs were illegally removed by the defendant from 29.12.1981. 4. Aggrieved by the decree of the trial court, the defendant filed an appeal, which was allowed and the decree of the trial court was set aside. The appellate court held that the defendant's educational institution was not a recognised educational institution and that the Rules of 1975 are not applicable to the plaintiffs' case and therefore, no prior approval was required to be obtained. The appellate court found that the defendant's institution was a private institution and that the parties were governed by the terms and conditions of the contract between them. The principle of master and servant relationship applied to the present case and, therefore, the plaintiffs could not claim the relief, as prayed for in their suit. The appellate court further found that the suit of the plaintiffs was not maintainable and that the plaintiffs could only claim the relief of damages. 5. Aggrieved by the decision of the appellate court, the plaintiffs have filed the present second appeal. 6. Heard Sri M.K. Nigam, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. Sri R.K. Pandey and Sri S.K. Shukla, the learned counsel for the defendant appealed before the Court and submitted that they have no instructions on behalf of the defendant. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the lower appellate court committed a manifest error of law in holding that the defendant's institution was not a recognized institution and that Rule 11 of the Rules of 1975 was not applicable. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the lower appellate court committed a manifest error of law in holding that the defendant's institution was not a recognized institution and that Rule 11 of the Rules of 1975 was not applicable. The learned counsel further stated that the appellate court committed an error in non-suiting the plaintiffs on the ground that the Rules of 1975 were not applicable at the time when the plaintiffs were appointed and that the correct approach that has to be seen is whether the defendant's institution was a recognised institution at the time of the removal of their services. 8. From a perusal of the record it is not clear as to whether the defendant's institution was recognized under the Basic Education Act at the time when the plaintiff's were removed from the services. The only evidence that has come is that previously, the institution was not recognised and only recently the institution has been recognized. The defendant had categorically stated in their written statement that Rules of 1975 are not applicable in the case of the plaintiffs. 9. In view of the aforesaid, I have no hesitation in holding that the defendant's institution was not a recognised institution at the time when the plaintiffs were removed from the services of the defendant's institution. Since the defendant's institution was not a recognised institution. Rule 11 of the Rules of 1975 was not applicable and no prior approval was required to be taken. Secondly, the plaintiffs could not claim the relief, which they prayed for in their suit. The defendant's institution being a private institution, the principle of master and servant relationship applied. The plaintiffs could only claim the relief for damages and could not claim the relief of reinstatement of their services. The judgment of this Court in Sachchidanand Dube and Ors. v. Committee of Management and Ors. 1995 (3) UPLBEC 1682, is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. The plaintiffs could only claim the relief for damages and could not claim the relief of reinstatement of their services. The judgment of this Court in Sachchidanand Dube and Ors. v. Committee of Management and Ors. 1995 (3) UPLBEC 1682, is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. On the other hand, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Smt. J. Tiwari v. Smt. Jwala Devi Vidya Mandir 1980 ALJ 1070, is fully applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case in which it was held that the rules and obligations of an employee of a private institution are governed by the terms and conditions of the contract entered into between the parties and that even if the dismissal of the employee is wrongful, only a decree for damages can be awarded and a declaration for reinstatement or for continuing in services cannot be awarded by the civil court. 10. In view of the aforesaid. I find no reason to interfere in the order passed by the lower appellate court. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. The second appeal fails and is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost.