A division bench of the Delhi High Court, comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula, has ruled in favour of the respondent teachers from Rao Manohar Singh Memorial Sr. Secondary School. The Court upheld the order of a single bench and directed the reinstatement of the teachers in their respective positions.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The case revolves around a group of teachers who were previously employed by Rao Manohar Singh Memorial Sr. Secondary School. These teachers were engaged as Trained-Graduate and Post-Graduate Teachers by the School. The dispute arose from the termination of their employment, which was based on a resignation letter attributed to them, purportedly addressed to the School's management.
The teachers challenged the legitimacy of the resignation letter and the legality of their termination. They contended that the School had violated the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 ("DSEAR") in terminating their services. They alleged that the resignation letter was fabricated by the School as a means to terminate their employment without adhering to the proper legal procedures.
The matter was initially brought before the Delhi School Tribunal, which ruled in favour of the respondents and directed their reinstatement in service. The School, dissatisfied with this decision, subsequently filed a petition before a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court. In this petition, the School argued that the respondents were gainfully employed elsewhere, and the vacancies created by their resignation had already been filled. Therefore, the School sought to challenge the Tribunal's decision.
Contentions of the Parties:
Contentions on Behalf of the School:
The School contended that the respondents were operating private coaching institutes in addition to their teaching roles at the School. It alleged that the respondents had compelled students to join their private tuition classes for better scores, which led to complaints from parents. The School maintained that the respondents voluntarily submitted their resignations on September 30, 2012, expressing their collective decision to pursue private coaching classes and suggesting that the School arrange for the employment of other teachers. Subsequently, the respondents ceased attending their duties at the School. The School further asserted that on October 11, 2012, a meeting was held where the resignation letters were accepted, and the respondents were discharged from service, effective from the same date. The School communicated this decision to the respondents on October 12, 2012, and removed their names from the School's rolls on October 15, 2012.
Contentions on Behalf of the Respondents:
The respondents vehemently contested the authenticity of the resignation letter attributed to them, claiming it was fabricated by the School to terminate their employment without following the proper legal procedures. They maintained that the School failed to provide the original resignation letter as evidence, which weakened the School's claims. The respondents argued that the minutes of the meeting held on October 11, 2012, did not constitute an acceptance of their resignation, as the resolution lacked specificity and failed to meet the legal requirements for resignation acceptance. They contended that the proceedings of the October 11, 2012 meeting violated the Delhi School Education Rules, as the Director of Education's nominees did not attend the meeting.
Observations by the Court:
The Court reviewed the minutes of the October 11, 2012 meeting, which were produced for the first time before the Single Judge. The Court concluded that these minutes did not qualify as an acceptance of the respondents' resignation because they lacked specificity, which is essential in cases of resignation.
The Court also observed that the proceedings of the October 11, 2012 meeting violated the Delhi School Education Rules. The Director of Education's nominees did not attend the meeting, creating a defect in the quorum and invalidating the decision to accept the respondents' resignation.
The Court rejected the school's argument that it did not need approval from the Director of Education to terminate the respondents' services, citing a precedent. It also noted that the school had initiated the process of appointing substitute teachers before the professed date of acceptance of the respondents' resignations.
Decision of the Court:
In its ruling, the Division Bench upheld the Single Judge's decision and directed the reinstatement of the respondents in their previous positions. If no vacancies were available, the respondents would be accommodated in the next available vacancies. Back wages would be decided by the school through a speaking order.
Case Name: Management of Rao Mohar vs. Sumit Tandon & Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula
Case No.: LPA 114/2018, LPA 119/2018, LPA 125/2018 and LPA 126/2018
Advocates of the Appellants: A.K. Singla, Senior Advocate with Mr. HD Sharma and Mr. Akshit Sachde, Advocates.
Advocates of the Respondents: Yeeshu Jain, Jyoti Tyagi, Manisha, Ankit Gupta, Anmol Gupta and Mithil Malhotra
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :