J.P. Bhardwaj vs Sawan Public School & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 1122 Del

$~
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      W.P.(C) 8184/2013 & CM APPL. 17276/2013

       J.P. BHARDWAJ                     ..... Petitioner
                         Through: Mr. Mayank Wadhwa, Advocate.

                         versus

       SAWAN PUBLIC SCHOOL & ORS.          ..... Respondents
                    Through: Mr. Gagan Chhabra, Advocate with
                             Ms. Richa Narang, Advocate for
                             respondents No.1 to 3.
                             Mr. Arun Kumar Sharma, Advocate with
                             Mr. Amiet Andlay, Advocate for
                             respondents No.4 and 5.


                                  Reserved on      : 24th February, 2014
%                                 Date of Decision : 03rd March, 2014

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

                             JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J:

1. Petitioner, who was a teacher employed by respondent No.1-school wants to retain official accommodation at the school premises till the time his appeal is disposed of by the Delhi School Tribunal.

2. Admittedly, the Delhi School Tribunal is not functional because of non-availability of a Chairman.

3. The initial writ petition bearing W.P.(C) 7978/2013 filed by the petitioner challenging his removal from service was disposed of by this Court on 17th December, 2013 by the following order:-

"Counsel for the petitioner, after arguments, seeks permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh petition which would be limited to grant of interim reliefs during the pendency of the appeal before the Delhi School Tribunal(DST) inasmuch as, as per the petitioner urgent interim reliefs are required and there is no Presiding Officer of the DST. Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty."

4. Consequently, the present petition is confined to the relief as to whether petitioner is entitled to be evicted/dispossessed from the official accommodation.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that respondents had acted contrary to Rule 117(b)(iii) of Delhi School Education Rules as no inquiry was ever conducted against the petitioner prior to his removal from service. He further stated that at present there were more than fifteen staff quarters that were empty and not occupied by any one.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 contended that petitioner had a history of beating up students and that despite stern warnings in the past, the petitioner had for the fourth time physically beaten up a student. He submitted that no inquiry was required in the present case as the petitioner had himself admitted the incident in his own letter dated 07th November, 2013.

7. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 further contended that the staff quarters that were lying vacant as of today, had to be immediately demolished under the first phase of reconstruction being undertaken by the

respondents. He contended that the premises occupied by the petitioner was immediately required for occupation by the newly appointed Hostel Superintendent. He lastly pointed out that the petitioner had not furnished an undertaking to pay damages for use and occupation as directed by this Court on 20th December, 2013.

8. In rejoinder, learned counsel for petitioner drew this Court's attention to the rejoinder affidavit wherein it was stated that petitioner could not furnish an undertaking as he was at the moment, due to fear, living separately from his family. Learned counsel for petitioner, however, stated that petitioner would completely bow down to the orders of this Court and would comply with the same.

9. Having heard learned counsel for parties, this Court is of the opinion that in view of the order dated 17th December, 2013, it would not be appropriate for the Court to enter into the merits of the controversy. The only issue that needs to be adjudicated is whether during the pendency of the appeal before the Delhi School Tribunal, petitioner is entitled to be evicted/dispossessed from the official accommodation situated in the school premises.

10. This Court is of the view that Hostel Superintendent is given official accommodation in school premises as he is required to be available in school all round the clock. Official accommodation is given to the Hostel Superintendent only to facilitate discharge of his duty. Consequently, petitioner cannot claim official accommodation as a matter of right after termination of his services.

11. Further, keeping in view the respondents' affidavit that the vacant quarters are required to be demolished under the first phase of reconstruction

to be undertaken in March, 2014, this Court cannot reach the conclusion that surplus quarters are available with the respondent No.1-school.

12. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner has not even furnished an undertaking to pay damages for use and occupation as directed by this Court on 20th December, 2013.

13. From a perusal of the paper book, this Court finds that even cross complaints have been lodged by the petitioner and respondents with the police. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that to maintain peace, decorum and congeniality in the school campus, it is also essential that the petitioner be evicted/dispossessed from the school premises.

14. Accordingly, petitioner is given four weeks to vacate the official accommodation. However, to balance the equities and to ensure that petitioner is not put to unnecessary hardship during the pendency of his appeal before the Delhi School Tribunal, the respondent No.1-school is directed to make available to the petitioner within a period of four weeks a similar alternate accommodation in an area not far from the school. The accommodation made available to the petitioner shall be subject to further orders to be passed by the Delhi School Tribunal. In the event, the Delhi School Tribunal dismisses the petitioner's appeal, respondent No.1-School would be entitled to recover the rent from the petitioner for the period the alternate accommodation was provided to the petitioner by the School.

15. With the aforesaid observations and direction, present petition and application stand disposed of.

MANMOHAN, J MARCH 03, 2014 js/rn