* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) No. 7585/2008 with CM Nos.14666/2008 ,
9225/2009 & 2463/2013
% February 26, 2013
TABITA CHAND ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Romy Chacko, Adv.
versus
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Latika Dutta, Adv. for Mr. S.D. Salwan, Adv. for R-1.
Mr. Azeem Samuel, Adv. for R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner who was recommended to be appointed as a Principal by the Managing Committee of the respondent/school, M/s. B.M.Gange, Girls Senior Secondary School, and which school is represented by respondents No. 2 and 3.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was recommended to be appointed as the Principal by the Managing Committee on 1.7.2008. By the said `meeting, the Managing Committee appointed the petitioner subject to approval of the Director of Education to the WP(C) No. 7585/2008 Page 1 of 5 appointment of the petitioner, and therefore the approval of the Director of Education was sought. The Director of Education vide letter No. 2582/VII dated 15.7.2008 refused to grant approval to the name of the petitioner for being appointed as Principal of the school. The petitioner contends that Director of Education has no role to play in giving approval because as per proviso to Rule 98 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 with respect to a minority aided school, no prior permission is required of the Director of Education. I may only note that the Director of Education refused approval vide letter dated 15.7.2008 on the ground that the petitioner was not the senior most PGT entitled to be appointed as a principal of the school.
3. On behalf of the respondent/school a stand is taken up that the petitioner was appointed only as an officiating Principal, however, after receiving the refusal of the Director of Education, one Mrs. M.M.Philip who is the respondent No.4 in this petition was appointed as an officiating Principal subject to approval being obtained of the Director of Education. In this regard the respondent/school relies upon the resolutions of the Managing Committee dated 27.8.2008 and 31.3.2009 showing taking over charge as an officiating Principal by Mrs. M.M.Philip/respondent No.4. The second resolution dated 31.3.2009 also talks of the fact that the petitioner WP(C) No. 7585/2008 Page 2 of 5 had allegedly wrongly taken 'no objection" by undue means from the other persons who were senior in the list to her, and which was one of the grounds for withdrawal by the Managing Committee of the earlier resolution dated 1.7.2008 in the subsequent resolution dated 31.3.2009.
4. The aforesaid facts show that really the dispute is in fact a dispute between the petitioner and the respondent/school. Since it is the common case of the parties that Director of Education has no role to play for grant of the approval for appointment of the Principal, really the issue between the parties is the entitlement of the petitioner to continue as a Principal or the entitlement of the respondent/school to take up a stand and maintain the stand that the petitioner was removed as an officiating Principal and in fact the respondent No.4 was appointed as an officiating Principal.
5. As per the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shashi Gaur vs. NCT of Delhi & Ors., 2001 (10) SCC 445, any issue between an employee or teacher of a school and the school pertaining to removal, has necessarily to be decided by approaching the Delhi School Tribunal which is constituted under the Delhi School Education Act, 1973. Since the petitioner claims that she ought to continue as a Principal, and the respondent/school states by relying upon the resolutions dated 27.8.2008 and WP(C) No. 7585/2008 Page 3 of 5 31.3.2009 that the petitioner since long was removed and is no longer the officiating Principal of the school, there is no issue of violation of any fundamental right of the petitioner for invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I again reiterate that this is not a case where the petitioner seeks enforcement of any provision of the Act or Rules as against the respondent/school or the respondent No.4 who is the present officiating Principal of the school.
6. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the judgment of Satimbla Sharma vs. St. Paul's Senior Secondary School dated 11.8.2011 in Civil Appeal No.2676/2010 that any dispute between an employee and a school, will not make the school a State as per Article 12 of the Constitution of India for exercising of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. In view of what is stated above without commenting one way or the other on the merits of the validity or invalidity of the appointment of the petitioner as the Principal of the school or otherwise of her removal from the post of the Principal of the school, and similarly on all such aspects qua the respondent No.4, this writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Delhi School Tribunal acting under the Delhi School WP(C) No. 7585/2008 Page 4 of 5 Education Act, 1973.
8. Finally, I may state that this Court had granted an interim order of status quo on 29.7.2009, however, since the resolutions of the respondent/school dated 27.7.2008 and 31.3.2009 show that it was the respondent No.4/Mrs. M.M.Philip who was continuing as the officiating Principal, the status quo order would only mean that as on 29.7.2009 it was the respondent No.4 who was continuing as an officiating Principal of the school and she would be entitled to continue as officiating Principal of the school, subject to any interim or final orders which may be passed by the Delhi School Tribunal.
9. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J FEBRUARY 26, 2013 ak WP(C) No. 7585/2008 Page 5 of 5