Dav College Managing Committee vs Suriender Rana & Another
2013 Latest Caselaw 730 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         W.P.(C) No.1828/2012

%                                                       February 14, 2013

      DAV COLLEGE MANAGING COMMITTEE ..... Petitioner
                   Through: Mr. Puneet Singh, Adv.

             versus

      SURIENDER RANA & ANOTHER                 ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. S.S. Nehra, Adv. for R-1.

Ms.Latika Choudhary for Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Adv. for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. The challenge by means of this petition is to the impugned

order dated 24.2.2012 of the Delhi School Tribunal which reads as under:-

"APPEAL NO.10/2012 Dated: 24.02.2012 Present: Petitioner in person.

Proxy Counsel for the Respondent School No.1 & 2 Sh. Mukul Yadav, Advocate.

Sh. Surender Kumar advocate who is incidentally present in the Court states that he shall seek instructions from the Directorate of Education i.e. Respondent no.3.

Adjournment is sought by the Proxy counsel for the Respondent School submitting that the main counsel Sh.Sanjay Kumar is out of station.

Perusal of the record shows that one of my Ld. Predecessors vide orders dated 15.01.2002 had directed for reinstatement in service of the petitioner. The Respondent has preferred an appeal against the said orders in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and thereafter in the Supreme Court. Hon'ble High Court vide orders dated 03.02.2011 upheld the orders of this Tribunal Ld. Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court. Despite orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 03.02.2011. The Respondent School has not reinstated the petitioner in service. In the circumstances, I do not find it a case for any adjournment. Notice as dictated be issued to the General Secretary, DAV College Managing Committee, Chitra Gupta Road, Rahar Ganj, New Delhi, and Manager of the DAV Century Public School & Ors. Arya Samaj Mandir, Railway Road, Rani Bagh, Delhi 110034 returnable for 01.03.2012.

P.O./DST 24.02.2012"

(underlining added)

2. This impugned order was thereafter followed by another order

of the Delhi School Tribunal dated 1.3.2012 which is also impugned, and the

operative portion of which reads as under:-

"As discussed above the Delhi School Tribunal vide its orders dated 15.01.2002 had set aside the impugned orders of termination of the service of the petitioner. It was specifically directed that the Petitioner be reinstated to its original position. The natural consequence of these directions would be to pay full back wages to the

Petitioner despite reinstating him in service. At this stage Ld. Counsel for the Respondent School Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate states that the Respondent School shall pay to the Petitioner full back wages within a period of one months from today. Besides adjusting him in some other school run by this management.

In the circumstances let any coercive directions under section 27 read with 11 of Delhi School Education Act & Rules - 1973 be not issued.

Renotify for further proceedings for 10.04.2012. Orders dasti.

P.O./DST 01.03.2012"

(underlining added)

3. A reference to the aforesaid orders shows that the petitioner is

under a misconception that the proceedings are in the nature of contempt

proceedings. The proceedings before the Delhi School Tribunal resulting in

passing of the impugned orders are in the nature of proceedings under

Section 27 of the Delhi School Education Act,1973 and which reads as under:-

"27. Liability of manager to punishment.- If the manager of any recognized private school-

(a) omits or fails, without any reasonable excuse, to carry out any orders made by the Tribunal, or

(b) presents any student for any public examination without complying with the provisions of section 19, or

(c) omits or fails to deliver any school property to the Administration or any officer authorised by him under sub- section (2) of section 20, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend three months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."

4. A reference to the aforesaid Section 27 shows that in case of

non-compliance of the orders which have been passed by the Delhi

School Tribunal, the manager of the School will be liable for punishment of

imprisonment or with fine or both.

5. I may note that the Supreme Court in the case of Union of

India & Anr. vs. Paras Laminates, 1990 (4) SCC 453 has held that every

Tribunal has within the bounds of its jurisdiction all those incidental and

ancillary powers which are necessary to make fully effective the express

grant of statutory powers. The exercise of such powers, which are

incidental and ancillary, are necessary to make effective the exercise of

powers which are granted.

6. Indubitably the Delhi School Tribunal as per Section 27 has

powers to implement its orders and thus it has all incidental and ancillary

powers to make orders under Section 27 effective. No doubt Tribunal

cannot exercise powers of contempt, but, the subject proceedings are not in

the nature of contempt proceedings but within the bounds of Section 27, and

under which the Delhi School Tribunal can surely act.

7. I may note that the operative portion of the second impugned

order dated 1.3.2012 reproduced above shows that the petitioner through its

counsel has conceded its liability for compliance of the order with respect to

reinstatement of the respondent No.1 alongwith the specified back wages.

Therefore, since no challenge can lie to a consent order in law, this petition

also cannot lie for this additional reason.

8. In view of the above, for both the reasons, that though the

proceedings before the Delhi School Tribunal are not in the nature of

contempt proceedings, (and nomenclature being irrelevant) but since Delhi

School Tribunal has powers under Section 27 of the Delhi School Education

Act, 1973 to pass orders in case of non-compliance of its orders the

impugned orders are not illegal or without jurisdiction. The aforesaid is to

be taken with the fact that the Supreme Court in the Paras Laminarts's

(supra) case held that every Tribunal has inherent powers to ensure that its

orders are implemented, and therefore, in my opinion there is no merit in the

writ petition by which the impugned orders of the Tribunal dated 24.2.2012

and 1.3.2012 are challenged. The impugned orders and proceedings before

the Tribunal are in the nature of execution proceedings by acting under the

provision of Section 27 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973.

9. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to

bear their own costs.

10. In case the petitioner has deposited any amount before this

Court, on the respondent No.1 showing to the registry of this Court orders of

the Delhi School Tribunal that the respondent No.1 is entitled to such

amount, then the Registrar of this Court will release the amount as ordered

by the Delhi School Tribunal in favour of the respondent No.1.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J FEBRUARY 14, 2013 ak