C.D. Sharma vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ...
2005 Latest Caselaw 1637 Del

JUDGMENT

Sanjiv Khanna, J.

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of learned single Judge dated 18th August, 1982 passed in W.P.(C) No. 664/74 titled C.D. Sharma v. MCD and Ors. By the impugned judgment the learned single Judge dismissed the aforesaid writ petition and has, inter alia, upheld the stand of the respondents that the seniority of the petitioner as Head Master is to be reckoned from the date Management of Bhartiya Middle School was taken over by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, i.e., with effect from 25.7.1963 and not from 16.7.1958, the date the appellant was appointed as a head master in the Bhartiya Middle School.

2. The brief facts relevant for the adjudication of the present appeal are as under:-

3. The appellant was appointed as Head Master in Bhartiya Middle School on 16.7.1958. The said School was recognised and aided by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The contention of the appellant is that this School was getting aid from government to the extent of 95%.

4. By resolution No. 649 dated 31.10.1963, the Management of Bhartiya Middle School was taken over by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi with effect from 25.7.1963. The aforesaid resolution states that the pay of the existing staff shall be protected and the earlier Management will be responsible for paying the liabilities of the School up to the date it was physically handed over to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The resolution further specifically provides that though the pay of the staff was protected, the staff shall not be given benefit of the past service for the purpose of seniority. It will be appropriate here to refer to the relevant portion of the aforesaid resolution of the Corporation dated 31.10.1963. The same reads as under:-

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

Copy of Resolution No. 649 of the Adj. Oct.

Meeting of the Corporation held on 31.10.1963.

SUB: Handing over the Bhartiya Middle School, Shakti Nagar to the Corporation.

(i) Commissioner's Letter No. 1404/TS(C) dated 25.7.63.

(II) Resolution No. 53 of the Eduction Committee dated 9.8.1963.

(iii) Resolution No. 579 of the Standing Committee dated 25.9.1963.

(Circulated herewith)

ACCOMPANIMENT

(i) Commissioner's letter No. 1404/T/S(C) dated 25.7.1963.

The provisional recognition of Bhartiya Middle School, Shakti Nagar expired on 14.7.1963. The management of the school has proposed to hand over the school to the Corporation on the following conditions:-

(1) The pay of the existing staff of the school is protected.

(2) The Management will be responsible for all the assets and liabilities of the school up to the day, the school is physically handed over to the corporation.

(3) The furniture and equipment of the school will be transferred to the Corporation free of cost.

(4) The material of games, articles, medical goods, scouting articles and books and charts with were purchased out of Boys Fund along with the cash balance of Boys Fund will be transferred to the Corporation.

I have examined the proposal and propose that the school may be taken over by the Corporation on the above conditions. The pay of the staff should be protected, but they should not be given the benefit of past service for the purpose of seniority. The staff statement along with the salary they are drawing is appended below:-

"---------------------------------------------------------

Name of person         Designation       Salary at present
----------------------------------------------------------
1.  Sh. C. D. Sharma    Headmaster             337.50
2.  Sh. Ranjit Singh    Trained Graduate       301.16
3.  Sh. Ishwa Dutt
    Shastri             Lang. Teacher          266.16
4.  Mrs. Sheela Sharma  Trained Graduate       246.48
5.  Mrs. Sulakshan Vij     -do-                236.64
6.  Miss Pushp Lata        -do-                246.48
7.  Sh. Kapoor Singh    Drawing Teacher        194.25
8.  Sh. Daya Nand       P.T.I.                 194.25
9.  Sh. Santosh Kumar   Asstt. Tr.             173.50
10. Ms. Santosh Kumari  Lang. Teacher          177.50
------------------
Class IV Servants:
------------------
1. Sh. Mahesh Chand     Peon                   107.00
2. Sh. Hari Kant        Waterman               104.50
3. Mrs. Shanti Devi     Caller                 104.50
4. Sh. Ram Kala         Waterman               104.50
----------------------------------------------------------

 

...
 

(ii) Resolution No. 53 of the Education Committee dated 19.08.1963.
 

Resolved that the proposal of the Commissioner contained in his letter No. 1404/T/S(C) dated 25.7.1963 regarding handing over the Bhartiya Middle School, Shakti Nagar to the Corporation along with the staff be recommended to the Corporation for approval.
 

(iii) Resolution No. 579 of the Standing Committee dated 25.9.1963.
 

Resolved that as proposed by the Commissioner in his letter No. 1404/T/S(C) dated 25.7.1963 and recommended by the Education Committee vide its resolution No. 53 dated 19.8.1963, handing over the Bhartiya Middle School Shakti Nagar to the Corporation Along with the staff as per list appended to his letter be forwarded to the corporation for approval.

RESOLUTION

Resolved that the recommendations of the Standing Committee vide its resolution No. 579 dated 25.9.1963 be approved.

The case is referred to the Corporation through the Eduction Committee and the Standing committee for approval of the above proposals. It may be treated as an item of Urgent Business."

5. On 1st July, 1970 the Middle Schools under the Municipal Corporation of Delhi including Bhartiya Middle School were taken over by the Delhi Administration. After the takeover a tentative seniority list dated 11.1.1971 was issued in which the appellant was shown at serial No. 11 and his seniority was reckoned from the date of his initial appointment as Head Master in Bhartiya Middle School, i.e. with effect from 16.7.1958 and not from the date of his takeover of Management of the School by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi with effect from 25.7.1963. The appellant was again shown at serial No. 11 in other tentative seniority list dated 11.8.1972 after some amendments were made in the seniority list on the basis of objections. This list again was not a final list. Ultimately a fresh list was published in September, 1973 in which the seniority of the appellant was shown at serial No. 113 on the basis that he was appointed as Head Master on 25.7.1963.

6. It is a contention of the appellant that his seniority should be reckoned and calculated from the date of his initial appointment as Head Master in Bhartiya Middle School on 16.7.1958 and not from 25.7.1963 when the School was taken over by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. He accordingly filed the civil writ petition before this Court for quashing of the seniority list as well as order dated 13th February, 1974 and a circular received by him on 18th September, 1978. He also prayed for declaration that services rendered by him in the previous School with effect from 16.7.1958 should be counted for the purpose of his seniority and accordingly he should be granted selection grade.

7. The learned single Judge after considering the arguments raised by the parties dismissed the writ petition, inter alia, holding that as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the resolution dated 31.10.1963 the petitioner could not be given benefit of past service for the purpose of seniority even if his pay had been protected. The learned single Judge has held that if the plea of the appellant was accepted, it would result in upsetting the seniority of the existing staff of Municipal Corporation of Delhi and this would be unjust and unfair. He rejected the contention that there was discrimination as the staff of Salwan Public School had been given seniority from the date of their initial appointment and not from the date when the said School was absorbed and taken over by the Corporation. The learned single Judge has further held that the resolution of the Corporation to take over the School was passed way back in the year 1963 and, therefore, it would not be correct to unsettle and quash the said resolution in a writ petition filed after a lapse of more than 10 years at the behest of the appellant herein.

8. Being aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge, the present appeal has been filed before us.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant pointed out that the appellant has since retired and if this appeal was allowed he shall be entitled to get benefit of selection grade and higher pay and allowances and consequential retirement benefits. It was further submitted by him that the resolution dated 25.6.1963 was never circulated and he had no knowledge or information about the same. The learned counsel also referred to an earlier letter dated 31.5.1963 in which the Management of the Bhartiya Middle School had proposed that not only the existing pay of the staff should be protected but also that their services rendered with the previous School should be counted for the purpose of seniority. He also submitted that in the case of Salwan School not only the pay and allowances of the staff was protected but they were also given benefit of the past service in the original School before its takeover. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment given by one of us (Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.) in the case of Dhan Singh and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors. reported in 2002 1AD (DEL) 393 and Kamla Devi Gupta and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors. reported in (1985) DLT 220 and an unreported decision of this Court in the W.P.(C) No. 229/1966 titled as Yogesh Bihari Lal Gupta v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi decided on 5th April, 1968.

10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, however, submitted that the appellant never challenged the resolution dated 31.10.1963 and the writ petition was filed only in the year 1974 challenging the seniority list dated 13.2.1974, which was prepared in conformity with the aforesaid resolution. Without challenging the resolution dated 31.10.1963, it was submitted that the appellant cannot question and challenge the seniority list dated 13.2.1974, which was only in conformity with the said resolution. It was further submitted that as per the terms agreed upon by the Delhi Administration for taking over the Schools vide letter dated 24.4.1970, seniority of an employee as fixed by Municipal Corporation of Delhi before his absorption in Delhi Administration could not be disturbed. The said terms and conditions further stipulated that where the seniority list was not in existence, such a list would be drawn up in accordance with the rules for determination of seniority in force in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi immediately before absorption. The issue with regard to seniority on absorption in Delhi Administration had led to litigation and ultimately was settled by a judgment of the Supreme court in the case of K.C. Gupta and 117 Ors. v. Lt. Governmor of Delhi and 43 Ors. . Reliance was also placed upon Section 207 of the Delhi Education Act, 1965, which was applicable before he enforcement of Delhi School Education Act, 1973 with effect from 9.4.1973. She referred to Rule 47 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 and relied upon the decisions of the Supreme court in the cases of Dr. Pushpa v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.1995 Supp.(2) SCC 276, The State of Punjab v. Joginder Singh , S.K. Saha v. Prem Prakash Aggarwal and Ors. , Joginder Prasad Mandal v. State of Bihar and Ors. and State of Punjab and Ors v. Harnam Singh and Ors. AIR 1997 Sc 1130.

11. It is apparent from the facts stated above that the appellant was appointed as a Head Master in Bhartiya Middle School on 16th July, 1958. The said school was a private school though receiving aid from the Delhi Government. As per Resolution No. 649 dated 31st October, 1963 the Municipal Corporation of Delhi took over the said school with effect from 25th July, 1963. The teachers including the appellant herein, who was working as the Head Master, were granted pay protection but the resolution specifically states that past service rendered by the teachers would not be counted for the purpose of seniority. The reason for the same is obvious as the teachers including the appellant were working in a private school and were not in Government service. If the period spent by the appellant and the teachers in the private school before its take over was/is to be counted for the purpose of seniority, it would necessarily disturb the existing seniority list, with several employees who had joined Government service earlier becoming junior to employees joining Government service later on i.e. on take over of the school by the Government. It would have necessarily caused resentment and agititation by the existing employees working in Municipal Corporation of Delhi. It appears that after examining all aspects of the matter, Resolution No. 649 dated 31st October, 1963 was passed ensuring pay protection of the staff working with Bhartiya Middle School, yet at the same time ensuring protection of seniority to the existing employees working in Municipal Corporation of Delhi by specifically providing that the benefit of past service rendered by teachers and employees in Bhartiya Middle School would not be counted for the purpose of seniority.

12. Whether or not past service rendered by an employee can be counted for the purpose of seniority, when he joins a new service, has been subject matter of controversy and debate for a long time. A five Bench decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Joginder Singh examined the question of seniority of teachers who were working in municipal and district board schools before they were taken over by the education department of the Punjab Government. It was held that only on take over of the school, the teachers of the municipal and district board became employees of the State Government and relying upon the order passed at the time of take over and the terms and conditions stipulated therein, it was held that the teachers working with the municipal and district boards constituted a separate and a distinct cadre. There was no question of inter-se-seniority between them and teachers working with the State Government. Of course, the Supreme Court also noticed that the qualifications prescribed and the method of recruitment were different and it was held that the teachers were dissimilar and, therefore, different treatment given to them cannot be regarded as denial of equal opportunity. What is important and relevant for the present case is the observation of the Supreme Court that the seniority issue has to be solved not on hypothetical or theoretical considerations but on the basis of the terms of the order by which the district and municipal board teachers were absorbed and became employees of the State Government. It was also held by Supreme Court that the hardship and inconvenience caused to the existing teachers of the State government is certainly a circumstance which has to be borne and kept in mind. The Supreme court further rejected the contention that the State Government cannot constitute two services of employees doing same work at a different scales of pay and specify two different conditions of services. It was held that the Government necessarily has the choice to constitute different services and there was no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

13. In the case of S.K. Saha v. Prem Prakash Aggarwal and Ors. , the appellant therein who was working in Government department was transferred to a Government Corporation and thereafter he again rejoined the Government service. Question arose whether he should be given benefit of past service prior to his rejoining the Government service. It was held that the appellant therein cannot be given benefit of past service. It was further held that the Supreme Court has repeatedly struck down and decried any attempt to give notional seniority from retrospective date specially when it affects seniority of officers who have already joined service. In the case of State of Punjab and Ors. v. Harnam Singh and Ors. , the Supreme Court considered whether previous service rendered by teachers in District Boards and Zila Parishads can be counted for the purpose of seniority and other benefits after the schools were taken over by the Government of Punjab. It was held that the terms and conditions of take over have to be given full effect too, and if as per the terms and conditions of take over, the teachers of Zila Parishads or boards were to be treated as fresh entrants into Government service from the date of taking over, then previous service rendered prior to that date cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority. The relevant observation of the Supreme Court is as under:

"The question, therefore, is whether the view of the High Court that the previous service rendered by the respondents/erstwhile teachers in District Boards and Zilla Parishads would be counter for the purpose of seniority and other benefits, is correct in law. In view of the aforesaid clauses, it would be abundantly clear that the Government has been given the discretion to take any of the existing members into the service and if so taken, they shall be treated as fresh entrants into the government service vis-a-vis the existing government employees. It would be reasonable to conclude that the Government have taken over the schools run by the District Boards and Zilla Parishads as government schools with the aforesaid conditions to safeguard the service conditions of the existing employees of the Government vis-a-vis the new entrants. Under those circumstances, the staff working in the former Zilla Parishads or Boards taken over by the Government would be treated as fresh entrants into the government service from the date of taking over. Therefore, the previous service rendered by them would not be counted for seniority, etc. It would also be clear that unless there was a condition at the time of take-over to treat the previous service of the employees as part of service under the government service, it would not be counted. In other words, it will be subject to the terms of take-over."

14. This judgment in our view goes against the arguments and contentions raised by the appellant herein. The terms and conditions of take over are clear in the Resolution dated 31st October, 1963. Past service was not to be counted for the purpose of seniority but the teachers working in Bhartiya Middle School were entitled to pay protection only. In Yogender Prasad Mandal v. State of Bihar and Ors. , some of the employees working in Bihar State Forest Development Corporation were rendered surplus and were appointed in the forest department of the State of Bihar. These employees submitted that their past services should be counted for the purpose of seniority as it was a case of mere transfer. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, inter alia, holding as under:

"It is the contention of the appellant that he was not freshly appointed in the service of the State Government but he was merely transferred and is, therefore, entitled to continuity of service and all consequential benefits. We have not been shown any provision or any Rule under which the services of an employee of an autonomous body can be transferred to the State Government with continuity of service or preservation of seniority. In the minutes of 11-11-1981 there is no mention of any continuity of service being maintained or the seniority of the staff absorbed being preserved from the date of their joining the Bihar State Forest Development Corporation. In the absence of this specific provision, the appointment in the State cadre has to be considered as appointment from the the date when it takes effect. The High Court, therefore, was right in coming to the conclusion that the services of the appellant will count from the date of his appointment in the State Trading Wing of the Forest Department of the State of Bihar and the earlier service rendered by him with the Corporation will not be counted for the purpose of seniority and other benefits. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs."

15. The above decision again clearly states that continuity and benefit of past service of an employee working in the autonomous body can be given for the purpose of seniority only when there is a specific provision or rule to that effect or mentioned in the terms agreed upon at the time of appointment in new service. In case there is no such rule or no provision is made, appointment in the new cadre has to be considered as appointment from the date when it takes effect and not from the date when an employee had joined an autonomous corporation/private institution. Similarly, in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. K. Savitri and Ors. , the Supreme Court has held that on redeployment of surplus staff, past service rendered prior to redeployment cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority in view of the scheme/instructions. It was further held that past service cannot be counted for the purpose of promotion as the past service cannot be regarded as service in the grade. The Supreme Court emphasised that the question whether past service should be considered to for the purpose of seniority has to be determined and decided on the basis of relevant rules or instructions in that regard. The Supreme Court in the case of Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board and Ors. v. R. Parthasarthy and Ors. has held that in view of specific provision made in Regulation 14, past service rendered in parent department of the State Government has to be taken into consideration after an employee was absorbed in the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Board. In this case the Supreme Court made a distinction between fixation of seniority which is relevant for the purpose of zone of consideration for promotion and qualifications including experience required for promotion. For purpose of qualification it was held past service cannot be ignored though it may not be counted for seniority. This distinction is also noticed by the Supreme Court in the case of Scientific Advisor of Raksha Mantri and Ors. v. V.M. Joseph . This aspect, however, is not relevant for our case and no such contention has been argued.

16. In yet another case Dwijen Chandra Sarkar and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. , the appellants therein had been transferred from one Government department to the other in public interest but with stipulation that past service would be counted for all purposes like fixation of pay, pension and gratuity etc., except seniority. The seniority of the employees so transferred was to be counted only from the date of transfer to the new department. The Supreme Court held that the words except seniority was intended to protect and not unset the seniority of the employees working in transferee department. However, in view of the terms and conditions of transfer, it was held that past service should be counted as experience required to be considered for promotion. In this case and the other case as cited above, the Supreme Court has recognised the fact that past service rendered can be counted for some purposes like experience etc. but there can be a stipulation that past service would not be counted for the purpose of seniority. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that if past service is counted for the purpose of fixation of pay, then it must also be counted for the purpose of seniority. These two aspects are separate and distinct and merely because past service is to be counted for the purpose of pay fixation and giving pay protection, it must be counted for the purpose of seniority.

17. It may also be appropriate to refer here to the another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of N. Ramachandran v. Govind Vallabh and Ors. . In this case reference was made to several earlier decisions of the Supreme Court and it was held that when a government servant holding a particular post is transferred to the same or an equivalent post in another government department, this transfer by itself does not wipe out the past service before transfer and has to be counted for the purpose of determining seniority. The Supreme Court in this case referred to a judgment in the case of A.K. Bhatnagar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. in which it has been held that seniority is an incidence of service and when the service rules prescribe a method of its computation, it is squarely governed by the said rules. In N. Ramachandran's case (Supra) the Supreme Court has laid down the following ratio.

"It, therefore, follows that total length of service is not relevant for determining the seniority but length of service to a particular class, category or grade is relevant consideration for the purposes of counting the period with respect to length of service for the purposes of determining the seniority. In other words the period of holding of the equivalent post in the parent department would be the relevant period to be taken note of for the purposes of determining the seniority under Rule 5(2) and its proviso. Any other interpretation would be against the settled rules of service jurisprudence and is likely to create many anomalies resulting in failure of justice and defeating the acquired rights of the civil servants based upon their length of service. A perusal of the rules does not, in any way, show and rightly so that the rule-making authority had ever intended to take away the benefit of the length of service of a person in his parent department before his deputation and absorption in the service."

18. Same view has been expressed by the Supreme Court in the case of Sub-Inspector Roop Lal and Ors. v. Lt. Governor and Ors. . In this case deputationists were absorbed and a question arose whether their past services should be taken into consideration for the purpose of counting seniority. This question was decided in affirmative in favor of deputationists, keeping in view the fact that earlier post occupied by them were equivalent to the post where they were absorbed. However, it may be mentioned here that Roop Lal's case and M. Ramachandran's case (Supra) are distinguishable because in the said cases the employees were working in government services before their transfer/absorption in another government department. In the present case, we are considering a situation where an employee was working in a private school and was not a government employee, yet contrary to the terms of the resolution dated 31st October, 1963 he wants that his past service in a private school should be counted for the purpose of his seniority in government service. It may also be appropriate to refer here Section 207 of the Delhi Education Code, 1965 which deals with determination of seniority, the same reads as under:

"Section 207: Seniority shall be determined by length of continuous service rendered in a particular grade. Service rendered by an employee in the same grade in school not under the same management shall however, not be counted for the purpose of seniority."

19. The seniority of the appellant had to be determined in terms of this section in view of the terms and conditions of transfer of building, staff of the higher secondary schools and middle schools of Delhi Municipal Corporation to the Delhi Administration. w.e.f. 1st July, 1970. The relevant portion of the said terms and conditions is as under:

"The seniority of any employee in the Special Cadre, as fixed in the Delhi Municipal Corporation before his absorption in the Delhi Administration, will not be disturbed. Where a seniority list is not in existence, such a list will be drawn up in accordance with the rules for the determination of seniority in force in the Delhi Municipal Corporation immediately before the absorption."

20. As per Section 207 of the Delhi Education Code, 1965 past service of the appellant in Bhartiya Middle School before its take over by Municipal Corporation could not have been counted for seniority. Further on take over of the School by the Delhi Administration w.e.f. 1st July, 1970 seniority had to be drawn in accordance with the rules, i.e. Section 207 of the Delhi Education Code, 1965.

21. This brings us to the decisions of the Delhi High Court which have been relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The first case is of Yogesh Bihari Lal Gupta v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Civil Writ No. 229/1966 decided on 5th April, 1968 by a single Judge of this Court. The said case is distinguishable as the school was taken over with a specific stipulation that the transferred employees will be given all benefits such as emoluments, status and seniory that are attached to the continuous service. The learned single Judge refused to accept the contention of the respondents therein that past service should not be counted as the relevant file relating to terms and conditions of take over of the defunct school was not produced and the reply given to the averments made in the writ petition was found to be cryptic. This decision of the single Judge was relied upon in another decision of this Court in the case of Kamla Devi Gupta verus Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others . In this case the petitioner therein was held to be entitled to benefit of past service in a private school after noticing holding, inter alia, that the notice of take over did not contain any such stipulation. It was further held that Rule 47 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 and Rule 130 of the fundamental rules were not applicable. It was also held by the learned single Judge that there was contradiction in the terms and conditions of transfer as propounded by the respondents therein. It was indicated that the teachers working in the private schools were merely transferred and it was not a case of new appointment. The learned single judge also did not have the benefit of the judgments of the Supreme Court, which we have quoted above. In these judgments it has been held that the benefit of past service of a person working in a private organisation or autonomous body before he joins government service can only be counted when there is a specific stipulation in the service conditions or instructions relating to his appointment and not otherwise. We are bound by the observations of the Supreme Court in this regard. Lastly, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon a judgment given by one of us (Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J) in the case of Dhan Singh and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors. reported in (2002) 1 AD (Delhi 393). In this case it was held that the teachers were never appraised about the decision that past service would not be counted and it was a case of transfer of teachers from DAV School to Municipal Corporation of Delhi which is covered by Section 20 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973. Keeping in view section 20 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, it was held that the teachers have to be given benefit of past service for the purpose of seniority.

22. In the present case it is difficult to believe that the appellant and the other teachers were not aware of the Resolution No. 649 dated 31st October, 1963 under which the management of the Bhartiya Middle School was handed over to the Delhi Municipal Corporation on specific terms and conditions. Thus, the present case is not one of transfer of teachers as in the case of Dhan Singh (Supra). On the other hand a specific resolution was passed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to take over the management of the school on certain terms and conditions mentioned in the resolution. The name of the teachers and employees of Bhartiya Middle School which after the take over became employees of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, was specifically mentioned along with the pay scales and designations. There was also a specific stipulation that their pay would be protected but they would not be given benefit of past service for the purpose of seniority. Section 20 of the Delhi School. Education Act, 1973 is not applicable to the present case as this is not a case of transfer of a school. Further, Delhi School Education Act, 1973 does not have retrospective effect and had not been enacted when the management of the Bhartiya Middle School was taken over by the Corporation on 31st October, 1963.

23. In view of our findings given above, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, there will be no order as to costs.