Delhi High Court
Neelam Kapur vs Director Of Education & Ors. on 3 September, 2015
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6555/2013
NEELAM KAPUR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.K. Saini, Adv.
Versus
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Satyakam and Mr. Prakash Kumar
Singh, Advs. for R-1 with Mrs. Meena
Goswami, DEO, Zone-7.
Mr. Ashok Chhabra, Adv. for R-2 to
7.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
ORDER
% 03.09.2015
1. The petition impugns the communication dated 25th September, 2013
of the respondent No.5 Diocese of Delhi (The Church of North India)
informing the petitioner that the Delhi Diocesan Executive Committee in its
meeting held on 6th September, 2013 has appointed Rev. Ashok Kumar
David as the Manager of Queen Mary's School in place of the petitioner.
2. It is the contention of the petitioner, appointed as the Manager of the
said School with effect from 31st August, 2007, that her removal as the
Manager of the School, in the said manner, without any notice to show cause
and without being afforded any opportunity of being heard and without any
enquiry, is illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and without jurisdiction and in
violation of the rules and regulations and the Scheme of Management of the
School.
3. The petition was entertained, though the interim relief sought declined
and LPA No.161/2014 preferred thereagainst was disposed of on 12 th March,
2014 by directing this petition to be heard.
4. The counsel for the respondents No.2 to 7, namely (i) The Governing
Body, Queen Mary's School; (ii) The Managing Committee, Queen Mary's
School; (iii) The Helen Jerwood Memorial Education Society of the Diocese
of Delhi of the Church of North India; (iv) Diocese of Delhi (The Church of
North India); (v) Sh. Sunil K. Singh, The Chairman, COM & Bishop of
Delhi, Diocese of Delhi; and, (vi) Revd. Ashok K. David, C/o Diocese of
Delhi, states, (a) that the petitioner was the Principal of Queen Mary's
School; (b) that with effect from 31st August, 2007 she was given additional
charge as Manager of the School; (c) that the petitioner, on attaining the age
of superannuation, retired from the post of Principal of the School in August,
2013 and accordingly, simultaneously, the respondent No.7 Rev. Ashok K.
David was appointed as the Manager of the School in her place. On specific
enquiry from the counsel for the respondents No.2 to 7, whether there was
any reason in the nature of stigma or misconduct for removal of the
petitioner as Manager of the School, the counsel for the respondents No.2 to
7 states that it was not even a removal as it was felt that the petitioner having
ceased to be the Principal, could not continue as the Manager of the School.
5. Though the counsel for the petitioner has commenced his arguments,
to find fault with the action aforesaid of the respondents No.2 to 4, but I find
that on 9th April, 2015 and 23rd April, 2015, the following orders were passed
in the petition:
"9th April, 2015
The petitioner impugns a communication dated 25.09.2013
appointing respondent No.7 as a Manager of the School in place
of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner states
that this constitutes her unceremonious termination and the
present petition has been filed only to vindicate her honour.
Learned counsel further submits that without prejudice to the
rights of the petitioner, she is ready and willing to tender her
resignation within one week if the said removal order is
withdrawn.
Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to take
instructions.
Renotify on 23.04.2015.
23rd April, 2015
Learned counsel for the respondent states that the petitioner is
has vacated office and, therefore, there is no question of
accepting her resignation at this stage.
Mr R.K. Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner is stated to be
unwell.
Accordingly, list for further arguments on 13.8.2015"
6. On enquiry, the counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is
not keeping good health and even in the event of succeeding in this petition,
owing to her health, would not like to act for more than a day as the Manager
of the School and would submit her resignation. He reiterates that this
petition was filed by the petitioner only to vindicate her honour.
7. In the aforesaid view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the issues
of law and facts raised in this petition need not be adjudicated. A Division
Bench of this Court of which the undersigned was a member in Association
for Development Vs. Union of India 167 (2010) DLT 481 following the
dicta of the Supreme Court in Arnit Das Vs. State of Bihar (2001) 7 SCC
657 and which reasoning has thereafter been followed in Binay Kumar Vs.
Govt. of India 2010 SCC Online Delhi 1471 and Guru Gobind Singh
Indraprastha University Vs. Dr. Smit Rajput 2015 SCC Online Delhi 9130
settled practice is that the Court does not decide matter which are only of
academic interest on the facts of a particular case and no purpose would be
serve by adjudication whereof. This is more so today, inasmuch as before
this Bench, more matters are listed every day than can be dealt with and in
the last two months there has rarely been a day when I have been able to
complete the Cause List of the day. It is thus felt that time should not be
spent in deciding whether the petitioner is correct when the petitioner, even
if were to succeed, is, at her own volition, not to continue as the Manager of
the School. That time had rather be used to consider the case of someone
else in urgent need of relief.
8. Following the aforesaid reasoning, I dispose of this petition.
However, keeping in view the advance age and precarious health condition
of the petitioner, and even otherwise, it is deemed appropriate to clarify that
the honour and reputation and the service rendered by the petitioner to the
School remains unaffected by her ceasing to be the Manager, which as
aforesaid was only on account of ceasing to be the Principal of the School.
With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.
No costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
SEPTEMBER 03, 2015
bs..
