JUDGMENT : Heard, learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Appellant has assailed the impugned order dated 02.03.2015, passed by learned Jharkhand Education Tribunal (JET), Ranchi in Case No.34 of 2011 whereby the order dated 15.07.2011 passed by the Management removing/retrenching five temporary teachers including petitioner/appellant has been upheld and the learned Tribunal has not interfered with the impugned order and dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner/appellant-Renu Gupta. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as per the order dated 15.07.2011, five teachers including the petitioner/appellant, who was at serial no.3 has been removed by Management Committee on the ground of financial crunch as mentioned at page 52 of the brief. The school has removed all these five teachers and that too without following the principles of natural justice. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant, Mr. Abhay Kr. Mishra has submitted that the petitioner in compliance of earlier order passed by the learned Jharkhand Education Tribunal dated 21.05.2011 in case No.44 of 2010 (JET), filed representation addressed to the Secretary/President of the respondent-school Managing Committee for enhancement of her salary at least at the rate of Matric Trained Teachers scale or otherwise in accordance with the provisions as contained in Minimum Wages Act. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the learned Tribunal has considered the appointment of the petitioner to be illegal, which was not the part of the order dated 15.7.2011 rather on the basis of the counter-affidavit filed by the Management, the learned Tribunal has expanded the scope of Appeal, which is not permissible, in view of the judgment in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors., reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405 . Thus, the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is fit to be set aside. The appellate court cannot permit the parties to change or improve from their case from the original pleading in Appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that nothing has been brought on record, by the Management to show that financial crisis has cropped up to the Management. The appellate court cannot permit the parties to change or improve from their case from the original pleading in Appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that nothing has been brought on record, by the Management to show that financial crisis has cropped up to the Management. In fact there is no fall of students nor the income of the school, as such, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law for the reason of financial crunched, as assigned by the Management. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that there was a categorical statement by the petitioner/appellant that there are more than 400 students, as such, there is no hardship or financial crisis to the school. 7. The impugned order passed by the Jharkhand Education Tribunal (JET) as well as order of removal passed by the Management of the school are not sustainable in the eyes of law and fit to be set aside. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent-Management, Mr. Priya Ranjan Bhagat has vehemently argued and supported the impugned order stating therein that pursuant to the order passed by Jharkhand Education Tribunal (JET) on 21.05.2011 in Case No.44 of 2010, the petitioner /appellant has filed a representation on 07.06.2011 stating therein that her dues of Rs.4,000/- along interest be paid and her minimum salary be enhanced at least to a level of teachers or at least to a person having daily wage earning so that she can live a common life. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent-Management has further submitted that the Management Committee has not appointed these teachers on regular and permanent basis rather as per their appointment letter which has been brought on record as Annexure-1 at Page 47, the petitioner was appointed on 02.05.1992, as a temporary teacher with following conditions :- “(i) Monthly salary will be Rs.400/- only. (ii) You have to follow the instruction of the Principal as well as the Managing Committee; (iii) This appointment will be for three months only. After that you have to apply again and if your services required, you will be continued otherwise not; (iv) You have to maintain the discipline and secrets of the school.” 10. (ii) You have to follow the instruction of the Principal as well as the Managing Committee; (iii) This appointment will be for three months only. After that you have to apply again and if your services required, you will be continued otherwise not; (iv) You have to maintain the discipline and secrets of the school.” 10. Learned counsel for the respondent-Management has submitted that the order which has been assailed before the Jharkhand Education Tribunal dated 15.07.2011 is with regard to the removal of the petitioner/appellant on the basis of the recommendation and decision made by the Managing Committee. The impugned order categorically states that for proper functioning of the school, there is shortage of money as the parents of children are donating less money, which is not sufficient to keep and maintain the temporary teachers, as such, the Managing committee has decided to remove all the five teachers temporarily appointed after due consideration and detail discussion and the name of the petitioner figured at Sl. No.3. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent-Management Mr. P.R. Bhagat has further submitted that none of the teachers were re-appointed as alleged by the petitioner/appellant before the learned Tribunal rather the same was categorically controverted by the school Management and the same was not replied or controverted by the petitioner/appellant thereafter. Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has taken a holistic view of the matter and has considered, the financial crunch apart from the legal right of the petitioner/appellant. The learned Tribunal has considered in its findings that the appellant being a temporary employee, whose appointment has not been confirmed or regularized in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors., vs. Umadevi and Ors., reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 . The petitioner/appellant was appointed for a temporary period of three months and no further representation was given nor extension was made, but she has worked. Subsequently the appellant/petitioner represented for enhancement of salary, the Management assessed the income expenditure and found that it is very difficult to cope up with these temporary teachers and the Management has removed the teachers on the ground of financial crunch rightly. There is no dues of the petitioner/appellant rather everything has been paid. 12. Subsequently the appellant/petitioner represented for enhancement of salary, the Management assessed the income expenditure and found that it is very difficult to cope up with these temporary teachers and the Management has removed the teachers on the ground of financial crunch rightly. There is no dues of the petitioner/appellant rather everything has been paid. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly considered that continuation in service for a long period on temporary basis shall not create a right for permanent/regular appointment. No procedures have been followed while initially appointing the persons, as it appears from the appointment letter which has been brought on record at Annexure-1, that the appointment was for a period of three months only and after that she had to apply again, if her services required, she would be continued otherwise not, as such, the Management has not done any illegality in compliance of the conditions by removing the persons who were appointed on sanctioned post by following due procedures of law. The Management took entire things under consideration and removed the teacher because of financial crunch, otherwise payment cannot be made to them. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that they have not changed the stand in the appeal, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant by placing reliance in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill (supra) rather to strengthen the order of removal, they have categorically stated that these teachers were appointed temporarily and there was sharp drop of students in the school in comparison to 1992, as a result of that the flow of subscription received from the parents of the students, with the passage of time has dwindled. Learned Tribunal while passing the impugned order has considered this aspect of the matter and adjudicated, that no right has accrued in favour of the appellant/petitioner as they were not a regular employees and thus, reliance has been placed upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Umadevi (supra). 14. Learned counsel for the respondent has thus, submitted that when the Management is not in a position to cope up with such financial liability, then it is very difficult to continue them, as such, they have rightly been removed from the service after paying their dues. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent has thus, submitted that when the Management is not in a position to cope up with such financial liability, then it is very difficult to continue them, as such, they have rightly been removed from the service after paying their dues. No dues is pending inviting interference of this Court and the order impugned passed by the learned Tribunal is justified. 15. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra and learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. P. R. Bhagat. The issue before this Court in appeal are:- “(i) whether a person can be removed from temporary service because of the financial crunch? (ii) whether the learned Tribunal has allowed the respondent management of school to change the pleading while passing the impugned order?” 16. The Court has considered the entire material on record. It is true that the order dated 15.07.2011 has been passed by the Management stating the financial crises to meet the expenses of the school, as such, all the five temporary teachers, who were appointed temporarily by the Management have been removed, as their appointment letter itself shows, that at the time of initial appointment, they have been appointed for three months and after that their appointment can be continued/made, if their services are required, then only they will be continued otherwise not. From perusal of the impugned order and going through the pleadings of the parties, it appears that there is a categorical averment by the respondent, that there is sharp drop of students in comparison to 1992, as a result, flow of dole/subscriptions received from the parents of the students, with passage of time has dwindled. Appellant/petitioner has not brought anything on record to controvert, that financial condition of school has not deteriorated. The learned Jharkhand Education Tribunal (JET), while passing the impugned order has not allowed the respondent to change the pleading, rather considered the things in detail with legal consideration made by the Management before passing order of removal dated 15.07.2011. There is no change in pleading rather the same is reason and explanation for passing impugned order by the Management of the school. 17. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court has considered the case of the parties and also the background in which the impugned order has been passed. There is no change in pleading rather the same is reason and explanation for passing impugned order by the Management of the school. 17. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court has considered the case of the parties and also the background in which the impugned order has been passed. In my opinion the pleading has not been changed, as such, the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The impugned order has rightly been passed by the learned Tribunal after examining the stand of the petitioner, who was temporary teacher and has been removed with other similarly appointed temporary teachers, considering the financial crunch of the school which necessitated for passing the order of removal. In my opinion, no illegality or infirmity has been committed in the impugned order inviting interference by this Court. 18. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.