Janak Katyal vs Delhi Maharashtriya Educational ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 1142 Del

*         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+               L.P.A. No. 570/2009


Janak Katyal                              ....Appellant
                    Through    Mr. Sushant Singh, Mr. P.C. Arya,
                               Mr. Gautam Panjwani and
                               Mr. Tejinder Singh, Advocates.

                         VERSUS

Delhi Maharashtriya Educational and
Cultural Society (Regd.) & Ors.        .....Respondents
                  Through Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate for
                             Respondents 1 and 2.
                             Mr. Meenakshi Singh, Advocate for
                             Respondent No. 3.

CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
                               ORDER

% 24.02.2011

The appellant, Ms. Janak Katyal has unsuccessfully

challenged her termination/removal, in the Writ Petition (Civil) No.

9437/2005 which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 20th

August, 2009. Learned Single Judge has held that the respondent

school was not required to take approval for closure of the

unrecognized nursery wing and there has been no violation of Rule 46

of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973. The prayer made by the

appellant for action under Section 20 of the Delhi School Education Act,

1973 was also rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent

school is a recognized school and, therefore, aforesaid Act and Rules

are applicable. In view of the said contention, notice was directed to

be issued vide order dated 16th November, 2009 and Director of

Education, respondent No. 3 herein, was directed to produce entire

record of recognition of the school.

3. The respondent school has, however, filed documents along with

index dated 23rd February, 2010 and 18th May, 2010. These documents

pertained to recognition of classes I to XII in the respondent school.

The Nursery Section of the respondent school is not recognized under

the aforesaid Act. Learned counsel for the Department of Education,

during the course of hearing, has admitted that the nursery section was

not recognized and therefore, the aforesaid Act and Rules were not

applicable to the nursery section of the respondent school. It may be

noted that the respondent school is not a State within the meaning of

Article 12 of the Constitution.

4. In view of the aforesaid position, we do no find any merit in the

present appeal and the same is dismissed. It is clarified that this Court

has not expressed any opinion whether or not the appellant herein is

entitled to initiate proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

No costs.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

CHIEF JUSTICE February 24, 2011 kkb