Delhi High Court
Babu Lal vs Guru Harikrishan Public School ... on 1 May, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+W.P.C Nos.4661/2012, 13566/2009& CONT.CAS(C) Nos. 956/2009,607/2012
% 1st May, 2013
BABU LAL ..... Petitioner
Through Md.Ehraz Zafar, Adv.
versus
GURU HARIKRISHAN PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ANR
..... Respondents
Through Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Bhagwant Singh, Ms. Manpreet Kaur and
Mr. Mansimran Singh, Adv. for R1 & 2.
Ms. Shawna Bari for Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Adv.
for R-2.
AND
+ W.P.(C) 13566/2009
BABU LAL ..... Petitioner
Through Md. Ehraz Zafar, Adv.
versus
DELHI SIKH GURUDWARA MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Bhagwant Singh, Ms. Manpreet Kaur and
Mr. Mansimran Singh, Adv. for R1 & 2.
Mr.Sidharth Yadav, Adv. for R-3.
with
+ CONT. CAS (C) 956/2009
BABU LAL ..... Petitioner
Through Md. Ehraz Zafar, Adv.
versus
S. KARTAR SINGH KOCCHAR AND ANR ..... Respondents
W.P.C.4661/2012, 13566/2009 & CONT.CAS(C) Nos. 956/2009 & 607/2012 Page 1
Through Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Bhagwant Singh, Ms. Manpreet Kaur and
Mr. Mansimran Singh, Adv. for R1 & 2.
with
+ CONT. CAS (C) 607/2012
BABU LAL ..... Petitioner
Through Md. Ehraz Zafar, Adv.
versus
S. KARTAR SINGH KOCCHAR AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Bhagwant Singh, Ms. Manpreet Kaur and
Mr. Mansimran Singh, Adv. for R1 & 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
W.P.(C) 4661/2012
1. In this writ petition the issue is as to whether or not the petitioner resigned
from respondent No.2-School. Whereas the petitioner contends that the petitioner
has not resigned and the resignation has been fraudulently obtained/illegally taken
by respondent No.2-School, the respondent No.2-school says that the petitioner
resigned without any coercion or any pressure or fraud by respondent No.2.
Therefore, there is disputed question of fact which requires trial before a Civil
W.P.C.4661/2012, 13566/2009 & CONT.CAS(C) Nos. 956/2009 & 607/2012 Page 2
court/tribunal. It has been similarly held by a learned single Judge of this Court in
the case of Sh. Radhey Shyam Sharma V. The Managing Committee, Mahasya
Chunni Lal Saraswati Bal Mandir and Anr. decided on 13.05.2011 in W.P.(C)
3245/2011 and which order reads as under:-
1 The petitioner claims to have been employed as a
Caretaker in the respondent No. 1 Mahasya Chunni Lal
Saraswati bal Mandir, an unaided recognized School
within the meaning of the Delhi School Education Act,
1973, from the year 1992 till 2002. He claims that in the
year 2002 he was forced to submit his resignation and
which was accepted resulting in termination of his
employment.
He first preferred an appeal to the Delhi School Tribunal
and which was rejected as not maintainable vide order
dated 30th September, 2008. He thereafter preferred
W.P.(C) 7116/2009 which was withdrawn on 7th may,
2010 with liberty to approach the appropriate forum in
accordance with law. Thereafter the present writ petition
has been filed seeking the relief of quashing the
termination order dated 22nd March, 2002 of the
respondent No. 1 school and for direction for
reinstatement.
2 The relief claimed by the petitioner is dependent
upon as to whether the resignation admittedly submitted
by the petitioner was forced upon him or not. The said
enquiry cannot be undertaken in writ jurisdiction as it
would necessarily entail examination and cross
examination of witness. It appears that for this reason
only, the earlier writ petition preferred by the petitioner
W.P.C.4661/2012, 13566/2009 & CONT.CAS(C) Nos. 956/2009 & 607/2012 Page 3
was withdrawn with liberty to approach the appropriate
fora.
3 Yet another question which arises is to the very
maintainability of the writ petition. As per the judgment
of the Division Bench of this Court in Kathuria Public
School Vs. Director of Education 23 (2005) DLT 89
(DB), the respondent no.1 School did not require
approval of the respondent no. 2. Directorate of
Education for accepting the resignation of the petitioner.
Thus the Directorate of Education had nothing to do in
the relationship of employer-employee between the
petitioner and the respondent No. 1 School, insofar as the
said resignation was concerned. The said part of the
judgment W.P.(C)3245/2011 of the Division Bench has
been disturbed by the Full Bench in judgment dated 27th
August, 2010 in O. Ref. No. 1/2010 titled Presiding
Officer, Delhi school Tribunal Vs. GNCTD. Once it is
held that the Directorate of Education is not concerned in
the termination of employment by the respondent no. 1
School, even if any, the writ petition even otherwise
would not be maintainable.
4 At this stage, the counsel for the petitioner seeks to
withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a civil suit.
5 Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid. No
order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
MAY 13, 2011"
W.P.C.4661/2012, 13566/2009 & CONT.CAS(C) Nos. 956/2009 & 607/2012 Page 4
2. It is not possible for this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution to decide the disputed question of facts. Of course, it is not
that this Court does not have such jurisdiction, however, the Court prefers that
such disputed question of facts be decided after detailed evidence is led by both the
parties in an appropriate court/tribunal.
3. Accordingly, counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner will file
appropriate civil proceedings to challenge the removal of the petitioner from
respondent No.2-school inasmuch as the petitioner states that the petitioner never
voluntarily resigned from respondent No.2-school.
4. There are interim orders which have been passed in this case on 14.08.2012
permitting the petitioner to join duties. These interim orders, without in any
manner commenting one way or the other on the validity of the same, are extended
for a period of 8 weeks to enable the petitioner to seek interim orders in civil
proceedings/civil suit and the concerned court/tribunal will decide the question of
the grant of interim orders uninfluenced by the continuation of the interim orders. I
hasten to clarify that continuation of the interim orders is no reflection one way or
the other on the entitlement or the disentitlement of the petitioner with respect to
interim orders, and this aspect will be independently considered by the concerned
court/tribunal where the petitioner's civil proceedings/civil suit would be filed.
W.P.C.4661/2012, 13566/2009 & CONT.CAS(C) Nos. 956/2009 & 607/2012 Page 5
5. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn, subject to the
aforesaid liberty and observations. It is further clarified that petitioner is given
liberty to claim all reliefs which are claimed in this writ petition in the civil
proceedings in the concerned court including before the Delhi School Tribunal
before which the petitioner proposes to file the civil proceedings.
W.P.(C) 13566/2009
6. The main issue urged in this writ petition was the claim that petitioner could
not have been suspended from the respondent No.2-school without prior or ex post
facto approval of the Director of Education. I have already pronounced judgments
on this issue in a batch of cases. On 10.04.2013 with lead case W.P.(C) 8412/2011
titled as Jatinder Kaur Saini v. School Management of G.H.P.S., Fateh Nagar &
Ors., and in which I have held that since the respondent No.2-school is an unaided
private school, no prior or ex post facto permission for suspension is required by
the Director of Education in view of two Division Bench judgments of this Court
in the case of Kathuria Plublic School v. Director of Eduction, 123 (2005)DLT 89
(DB) and Delhi Public School & Anr. v. Shalu Mahendroo & Ors. (2013)196
DLT 147 (DB). Accordingly, the petitioner cannot challenge the issue of
suspension on the ground of lack of permission from Director of Education.
W.P.C.4661/2012, 13566/2009 & CONT.CAS(C) Nos. 956/2009 & 607/2012 Page 6
7. So far as the relief of challenge to the suspension on merits is concerned, in
my opinion, this issue will also be appropriately dealt with in civil proceedings in
the concerned court including before Delhi School tribunal/civil suit which the
petitioner states that the petitioner will file inasmuch as suspension order will
merge in the resignation, if at all valid, of the petitioner from the respondent No.2-
school.
8. In this case, interim orders were granted on 03.12.2009. As per interim
orders, operation of the communication dated 14.11.2009 suspending the petitioner
was stayed. These interim orders are continued for a period of 8 weeks from today
to enable the petitioner to seek appropriate interim orders in the civil
proceedings/civil suit which the petitioner proposes to file. I add that continuation
of interim orders is not a reflection one way or the other on the entitlement or
disentitlement of the petitioner to interim orders in the civil proceedings/civil suit.
The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, subject to the aforesaid liberty and
observations.
Cont. Cas (C) 956/2009 & 607/2012
Learned counsel for the petitioners do not press these petitions with liberty
to urge interim orders in the civil proceedings/civil suit which the petitioners
W.P.C.4661/2012, 13566/2009 & CONT.CAS(C) Nos. 956/2009 & 607/2012 Page 7
propose to file. Without prejudice to the respective rights and contentions, these
contempt petitions are, accordingly, disposed of with the liberty as prayed for.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
MAY 01, 2013
rb
W.P.C.4661/2012, 13566/2009 & CONT.CAS(C) Nos. 956/2009 & 607/2012 Page 8
