Doris James vs St Pauls Dicesan School And Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 2945 Del

$~35

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                             Judgment delivered on: 3rd May, 2012

+      W.P.(C) 1721/2012 and CM Nos. 3804/2012 & 5301/2012


       DORIS JAMES                                     ..... Petitioner
                              Through : Mr. Jay Kishor Singh, Adv.


                      Versus



       ST. PAUL'S DICESAN SCHOOL & ORS ..... Respondents
                      Through : Mr. A.K. Chhabra, Adv.for R-1&2.
                      Mr. Sanjeev Narula, Adv. for R-3.

       CORAM:

       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of suspension dated 21.03.2012 passed by the respondents No.1&2 whereby an illegality has been committed and the rules of Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 have been violated.

2. Ld. counsel for the petitioner submitted that in a case of suspension, the management has to send an intimation to the Director of Education while seeking an approval of the suspension, and which has to be granted within 15 days, failing which the suspension loses its effect.

3. Admittedly, the petitioner was put under suspension on 21.02.2012 and an intimation was sent to the Director of Education on 29.03.2012. Till date no approval has been received by the respondents No.1 & 2.

4. Ld. counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2, on instructions, submitted at bar that the order of suspension dated 21.03.2012 stands withdrawn.

5. He further submitted that subsequently, in meeting dated 24.04.2012 a decision has been taken and ratified the suspension of the petitioner on the same date.

6. It is further submitted that an intimation seeking approval has been sent to the Director Education with all the documents on 24.04.2012 followed by a reminder.

7. Since 15 days have not passed, therefore, respondents No.1&2 have not received approval from the Director of Education.

8. Ld. counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2 further submitted that since the suspension order dated 21.03.2012 stands withdrawn, therefore, they shall pay full salary for the intervening period.

9. Whether the second suspension is permissible in law, without reinstating the petitioner? The issue is not before me. Therefore, at this stage, I deem it appropriate not to record my opinion on this issue raised by ld. Counsel for the petitioner.

10. In view of the above statement made by ld. counsel for respondents No.1 & 2, the relief sought in the instant petition stands satisfied.

11. No further orders are required.

12. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.

CM Nos. 3804/2012, 5301/2012 & 5519/2012 Dismissed as infructuous.

SURESH KAIT, J

MAY 03, 2012 RS