Delhi High Court
Jain Happy School vs Urmila Jain & Anr. on 6 September, 2010
Author: V.B.Gupta
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI
CM (M) No. 1112/2010 & CM No. 15603/2010 (stay)
% Judgment reserved on: 30th August, 2010
Judgment delivered on: 6th September, 2010
Jain Happy School,
Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg,
New Delhi-110001. ....Petitioner.
Through: Mr. Puneet Taneja, Advocate.
Versus
1. Urmila Jain
W/o Sh. Raj Kumar Jain,
H.No. 46, A-2, Block,
Nehru Gali, West Sant Nagar,
Delhi-110084
2. Director of Education
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Old Secretariat,
Delhi-110054 ....Respondents
Through: None
Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest? Yes
V.B.Gupta, J.
Present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, vide which petitioner has challenged order dated
22nd February, 2010 passed by Presiding Officer, Delhi School
Tribunal (for short as „Tribunal‟) allowing application of respondent
no. 1, for impleadment of Sh. Prem Kumar Jain and Sh. V.P. Jain as
respondents, in this case.
2. Brief facts of this case are that, respondent no. 1 (Appellant
before Tribunal) joined petitioner‟s school in 1991 as Primary
Teacher. Thereafter, she was promoted to higher posts from time to
time and was officiating as Vice- Principal. In 2009, she was reverted
back to her original position of TGT.
3. Respondent no. 1 challenged the order of her reversion before
the Tribunal. In appeal, petitioner filed its written statement.
4. During the course of appeal, respondent no. 1, filed an
application for impleadment of Sh. Prem Kumar Jain and Sh. V.P.
Jain, as respondents stating that in counter-affidavit/reply, petitioner
has made serious allegations against them. Relevant portion of para
2(i) and 2(ii) of the written statement read as under;
2(i) "However, appellant in connivance with the then
Manager Sh. Prem Kumar Jain made an entry in
her service book where she was illegally and
without any authority or approval was shown as
officiating Principal instead of Vice-Principal".
2(ii)"The appellant always remained as officiating Vice
Principal though the appellant has been illegally
showing herself to be the officiating
Principal/Principal in collusion with ex-chairman
V.P. Jain."
5. It is contended by learned counsel that there is no provision
under Delhi School Education Act to implead any individual who is
not part of the management of the School and as such no private
individual can be impleaded as a party to the appeal.
6. It is also contended that persons sought to be impleaded, are
neither necessary nor proper party, since no relief has been sought
against them. Thus, there was no occasion for the Tribunal to implead
ex-Chairman and ex-Manager of the school as party to the
proceedings.
7. Relevant provision of Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil
Procedure reads as under:-
"10. Suit in name of wrong plaintiff-(1) Where a
suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong
person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether
it has been instituted in the name of the right
plaintiff, the Court may at any stage of the suit, if
satisfied that the suit has been instituted through a
bona fide mistake, and that it is necessary for the
determination of the real matter in dispute so to do,
order any other person to be substituted or added
as plaintiff upon such terms as the Court thinks
just.
(2) Court may strike out or add parties- The
Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either
upon or without the application of either party, and
on such terms as may appear to the Court to be
just, order that the name of any party improperly
joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck
out, and that the name of any person who ought to
have been joined, whether as plaintiff or
defendant, or whose presence before the Court
may be necessary in order to enable the Court
effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and
settle all the questions involved in the suit, be
added.
(3) XXX XXX XXX
(4) XXX XXX XXX
(5) XXX XXX XXX
8. As per above provisions, the court can implead any party whose
presence is necessary for just decision of the case.
9. Petitioner itself has made allegations against respondent no. 1,
as well as persons sought to be impleaded, that respondent no. 1 in
connivance with the then Manager Sh. Prem Kumar Jain has made an
entry in her service book where she was illegally and without any
authority or approval was shown as officiating Principal instead of
Vice- Principal.
10. Petitioner also alleged in its written statement that respondent
no. 1 always remained as officiating Vice- Principal though she has
been illegally showing herself to be the officiating Principal/Principal
in collusion with ex-Chairman Sh. V.P. Jain.
11. In view of these averments made by petitioner in its written
statement, trial court rightly allowed application of respondent no. 1,
observing;
"Under these circumstances, where serious
allegations have been leveled against the ex-
Manager and ex-Chairman of the school, the
truthfulness/falsehood of these allegations cannot
be decided in the absence of the said persons and
the documents questioned by the Respondent No. 1
are material for deciding the dispute in hand.
I find force in the plea of the appellant to implead
Sh. Prem Kumar Jain and Sh. V.P. Jain as
necessary parties in this matter. The Application
for impeladment is accordingly allowed."
12. Thus, there is no illegality, infirmity or irregularity in the
impugned order passed by the trial court.
13. Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is
devoid of any merits and the same is hereby dismissed.
+ CM No. 15603/2010 (stay)
14. Dismissed.
15. Copy of this order be sent to the Tribunal.
6th September, 2010 V.B.GUPTA, J.
rs
