Delhi High Court
Sushma Arora & Ors vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 12 August, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 12th August, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 4061/2008, CM No.14654/2008 (for recalling of order
dated 7th July, 2008), CM No.2212/2009 (for deletion of names of
the petitioners no.2,3,5&9 and for stay/direction), CM
No.6495/2010 (for vacation of stay), CM No.1657/2011 (for
direction) & CM No.6350/2011 (for dispensing services of
petitioners no.4,6&10)
SUSHMA ARORA & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sarvesh Bisaria, Adv.
Versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Simran N. Rawat, Adv. for
R-1to3.
Mr. P.K. Rawal & Mr. Saurabh
Munjal, Adv. for R-4 to 6.
AND
+ W.P.(C) 4062/2008,CM No.3149/2009 (for deletion of name of
petitioner no.5 and for ex parte stay) & CM No.19970/2010 (for
stay).
MENU & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sarvesh Bisaria, Adv.
Versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Simran N. Rawat, Adv. for
R-1to3.
Mr. P.K. Rawal & Mr. Saurabh
Munjal, Adv. for R-4 to 6.
W.P.(C)4061/08,4062/08&Cont.Case(C)467/09&794/2010 Page 1 of 8
AND
+ Cont. Case (C) No.467/2009
KRISHNA SHARMA ..... Relator/Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sarvesh Bisaria, Adv.
Versus
RAKESH MEHTA & ORS. ... Alleged Contemnors/Respondents
Through: Ms. Simran N. Rawat, Adv. for
R-1to3.
Mr. P.K. Rawal & Mr. Saurabh
Munjal, Adv. for R-4 to 5.
AND
+ Cont. Case (C) No.467/2009, CM No.21257/2010 (for stay) &
CM No.9078/2011 (u/O 1 R 10)
SHALINI GUPTA ..... Relator/Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sarvesh Bisaria, Adv.
Versus
O.P. BABBAR & ANR. .... Alleged Contemnors/Respondents
Through: Mr. P.K. Rawal & Mr. Saurabh
Munjal, Adv.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may Not necessary
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Not necessary
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Not necessary
in the Digest?
W.P.(C)4061/08,4062/08&Cont.Case(C)467/09&794/2010 Page 2 of 8
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The two writ petitions have been filed by the teaching and non-
teaching staff respectively of the respondents M.R.V. Model School,
Sector 13, Dwarka, New Delhi and M.R.Vivekanand Model School,
Mukhram Park, Tilak Nagar, Delhi, seeking mandamus to the respondent
Directorate of Education of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi to ensure
compliance by the said schools of the provisions of Section 10 of the Delhi
School Education Act, 1973 (DSE Act) and Rule 125 of the Delhi School
Education Rules, 1973 (DSE Rules). Notice of the petitions was issued.
However on 7th July, 2008 the counsel for the petitioners withdrew the writ
petitions with liberty to file a petition for the same relief before the Delhi
School Tribunal.
2. The petitioners thereafter filed applications for re-calling of the
order dismissing the writ petition as withdrawn. Notice of the said
applications was issued. The petitioners thereafter filed other applications
averring that the schools had initiated action of termination of services of
some of the staff members. Vide order dated 17th February, 2009, status
quo regarding the services of the petitioners was directed to be maintained.
The said interim order has led to the filing of the Cont.Case (C) 467/2009
and Cont.Case (C) 794/2010.
3. The counsel for the petitioners has today contended that the
respondent Directorate of Education has not filed any counter affidavit.
4. The counsel for the schools states that as of today there are no writ
petitions and only the applications for re-calling of the order withdrawing
the writ petitions are for consideration. He further states that notice of the
said applications has not even been served on the schools and as such the
schools have had no opportunity to respond to whether the writ petitions
should be allowed to be restored or not. He seeks time for filing reply to
the said applications but also contends that owing to the interim order, the
schools are restrained from taking action against the teachers who are not
qualified. It is contended that the schools have been granted only
provisional recognition and it is a term of the said provisional recognition
that the school is to rid itself of teachers who are not qualified as per the
DSE Rules.
5. Though no order has been made reviving the writ petitions but a
perusal of the order sheet shows that the matter at least since 3 rd August,
2009 is being dealt as if the writ petitions stand revived and time has been
sought and granted for filing counter affidavits and rejoinders. The counsel
for the schools has also been appearing since 3 rd August, 2009 and the
order sheets show that the plea as raised today that the writ petitions stand
withdrawn and ought not to be revived was not raised. Had such a plea
been raised, the orders for completion of pleadings would not have been
made. The counsel for the schools also admits that in fact the counter
affidavit was filed by the schools during the said time only. Again, if the
stand of the schools had been that the writ petitions do not exist, the
occasion for filing the counter affidavit would not have arisen.
6. As such, now after two years I cannot entertain the plea of it being
required to be first adjudicated whether the writ petitions stand revived or
not. The matter is to be proceeded on the premise that the writ petitions
stand revived.
7. The counsel for the petitioners has contended that the only order
sought is for the schools to comply with Section 10 of the DSE Act and
Rule 125 of the DSE Rules (supra).
8. The schools cannot possibly have any objection to the same in as
much as the schools as a condition of recognition are required to comply
with the Act and the Rules. The counsel for the schools however states that
the provisional recognition was granted to the schools only on 21st July,
2009. He thus contends that the schools would be required to pay
emoluments in accordance with the Act and the Rules only with effect
from that date and not from prior thereto.
9. The counsel for the petitioners is also agreeable that the directions
for compliance of the aforesaid provisions can be from the said date of
provisional recognition only.
10. Though the relief claimed in the writ petitions was as aforesaid only
but interim orders of maintenance of status quo qua employment have also
been made. The counsel for the petitioners however fairly agrees that the
matter of dismissal by the schools of any of the teachers is to be dealt with
separately and not in these writ petitions.
11. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of with the following
directions:-
a. That the respondent schools are directed to, with effect
from the month of September, 2011, pay emoluments to
the petitioner in accordance with Section 10 & Rule 125
(supra);
b. The respondent schools are granted time till 31st March,
2012 to clear the arrears if any of the said emoluments by
payment thereof to the teaching/non-teaching staff;
c. If teaching/non-teaching staff remains aggrieved, they
would be at liberty to approach the Directorate of
Education and upon being so approached, the Directorate
of Education is directed to enquire and if finds schools to
be in defiance of this order and/or of the provisions
aforesaid, to take appropriate action against the schools in
accordance with law but definitely within four months of
being so approached by the employees.
12. The interim order aforesaid is vacated. However if any dispute arises
as to the action by the schools against any teaching/non-teaching staff,
such staff shall have their remedies in accordance with law.
CONT.CAS(C) 467/2009 & CONT.CAS(C) 794/2010.
13. Cont. Cas (C) 467/2009 is not pressed by the counsel for the
petitioner/relator.
14. As far as Cont. Cas (C) 794/2010 is concerned, it is the case of the
Relator that the affidavit filed by the schools in the writ petitions is false.
The counsel for the petitioner / relator however states that a separate writ
petition with the same grievances has been filed. The said contempt
petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners/relators to raise the
pleas as raised herein in the separate writ petition stated to have been filed.
No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
AUGUST 12, 2011
pp
