Rajnikanth Upadhyaya & Ors. vs The Directorate Of Education & ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 1520 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                           W.P.(C) No. 5624/2011
%                                                            3rd April, 2013

RAJNIKANTH UPADHYAYA & ORS.               ...... Petitioner
                Through: Mr. Achal Gupta with Mr. Preet Pal Singh,
                         Advocates.


                            VERSUS

THE DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ORS.                ...... Respondents

Through: Ms. Reeta Kaul, Adv. for R-1,2.

Mr. Vinay Kumar Garg with Mr. Kish Sharma, Advocates for R-3 and 4.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. The following reliefs have been claimed in this writ petition:-

a. Issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order thereby quashing the letter dated 07th June 2011 whereby the respondent no.3 and 4 suspended the petitioner no.8 in illegal and whimsical manner, and

b. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order thereby quashing the illegal actions of the respondent nos. 3 & 4 of demoting the petitioner no.1 and

c. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order thereby quashing the illegal actions of the respondent nos. 3 & 4 of initiating various proceedings and issuing various memos against the petitioners thereby arbitrarily singling them out and discriminating them, and

d. Issue of any appropriate writ, direction or order thereby directing the respondent nos. 1 & 2 to form an independent inquiry committee to look into the allegations and charges levelled by the respondent nos. 3 & 4 against the petitioners; and

e. Issue of any appropriate writ, direction or order thereby restraining the respondent no. 3 & 4 from initiating any false and frivolous action against the petitioners in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner, and

f. Pass an order thereby awarding compensatory costs against the respondents and in favour of the petitioner herein for dragging the petitioner into the present litigation; and

g. Such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case to meet the ends of justice."

2. So far as Relief No.a of suspension of petitioner no.8 is concerned,

counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4 school states that the petitioner no.8 was

dismissed from service after following due process of law under the Delhi School

Education Act and Rules, 1973 (for short the 'Act'). The order is dated

25.01.2012. Once an order is passed against an employee/teacher removing such

person from service the order is appealable to the Delhi School Tribunal as per

Shashi Gaur Vs. NCT of Delhi, (2001) 10 SCC 445. Accordingly no further

orders are required to be passed so far as prayer No.a is concerned, and so far as

this relief is concerned, the writ petition will stand dismissed. Interim order dated

30.01.2012 stands vacated giving liberty to the petitioner to file such independent

and appropriate proceedings to challenge the removal of petitioner no.8 in

accordance with law.

3. So far as prayers (b) and (c) are concerned, they can be taken up with

prayer(e). These three prayers are very wide and general, and ordinarily I would

have dismissed this writ petition qua these reliefs, however, counsel for

respondent nos. 3 and 4 states that whatever action will be taken against the

petitioners will be in accordance with the Act and Rules. Accordingly, no further

orders are required to be passed so far as reliefs (b), (c) and (e) are concerned.

4. So far as prayer (d) is concerned, this prayer cannot be granted

because every school is entitled to take action in accordance with law against any

of its teacher or employee. Counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4 reiterates that

whatever action will be taken against the petitioners, the same will be in

accordance with the Act and Rules. Accordingly, no further order is required to be

passed also as far as prayer (d) is concerned.

5. Counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4 states that petitioner no.1 has not

been demoted in the sense that there is no reduction in the scale of pay or

downward change of post/appointment of the petitioner No.1 and merely different

set of duties of teaching have been assigned to petitioner no.1 without in any

manner affecting the pay scale of petitioner no.1. This statement of the counsel for

respondent nos. 3 and 4 will bind the respondent nos. 3 and 4.

6. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed so far as prayer (a)

is concerned, reserving liberty to petitioner no.8 to approach the Delhi School

Tribunal in accordance with law. So far as the other reliefs are concerned, the

same stands disposed of in terms of the statements made on behalf of respondent

nos. 3 and 4. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J APRIL 03, 2013 as