In announcing this ruling, the Court noted that misconduct on the part of a teacher which existed prior to the present contract could not of itself be used to terminate the present contract, but if it were proven that such teacher was grossly inefficient and that such inefficiency continued after the date of the contract, such would be grounds for dismissal. Refer also, 78 C.J.S. Schools, 202, 68 Am.Jur.2d, Schools, 197, 4 A.L.R.3d 1093, 3(b). Notably, this exception has been limited to those cases alleging present gross inefficiency, unfitness or incompetency. Although no Oklahoma decision on this specific question can be found, the Oklahoma Courts have generally recognized the basic evidentiary principles upon which the referred exception is founded. Kurn v. Radencic, 193 Okl. 126, 141 P.2d 580 (1943), Board of Commissioners v. Enid Springs Sanitarium and Hospital, 116 Okl. 249, 244 P. 426 (1926), Cavanagh v. Old Republic Credit Life Insurance Co., Okl., 354 P.2d 432 (1960). A review of these decisions reveals that the exception only applies in those cases where such collateral evidence clearly affords a reasonable presumption or inference as to the material facts in dispute.