Delhi High Court
School Management Of Ring Midways ... vs Riva Singh & Anr. on 6 January, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 67/2017
% 6th January, 2017
SCHOOL MANAGEMENT OF RING MIDWAYS SENIOR
SECONDARY PUBLIC SCHOOL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar and Mr. Avinash
Kumar, Advocates.
versus
RIVA SINGH & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. By this writ petition under Article 226 and Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner/school impugns the order of the Delhi
School Tribunal dated 7.12.2016, by which the Delhi School Tribunal has
allowed the appeal filed by the respondent no.1 herein and directed that she
will be reinstated in employment by the petitioner/school.
2. A reading of the impugned order of the Delhi School Tribunal
shows as under:-
(i) Respondent no.1 was confirmed as an Assistant Teacher in the
petitioner/school on 10.7.2011.
(ii) An inspection report was prepared by a committee constituted by the
Director of Education, which is dated 15.5.2014, and which showed various
discrepancies in the working of the petitioner/school including wrongful
appointment of teachers, financial irregularities etc etc.
(iii) In this report dated 15.5.2014, the name of the respondent no.1 herein
(appellant before the Delhi School Tribunal), does not exist in that the
committee of the Director of Education has not observed that respondent
no.1 has been illegally appointed.
(iv) In fact a reading of the impugned judgment of the Delhi School
Tribunal, as also all other pleadings, shows that there is no issue with
respect to lack of qualifications alleged of the respondent no.1 for being
disentitled to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher with the
petitioner/school.
(v) Admittedly the respondent no.1 was a confirmed teacher and she was
removed from services without following the due procedure provided in
Rule 120 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 of setting up of a
disciplinary authority, enquiry report being submitted after allowing both
the parties to lead evidence, a disciplinary authority validly constituted
which has accepted the report of the enquiry officer against the respondent
no.1/teacher, and whereby the respondent no.1/teacher has been
held/accepted to be illegally appointed and hence she has to be removed.
Therefore, there is admitted violation of the provisions of the Delhi School
Education Rules which require that a confirmed employee can only be
removed from services after following the due process of law and by
conducting of an enquiry as per the Delhi School Education Act and Rules.
(vi) No prior permission of the Director of Education was taken as
required by Section 8(2) of the Delhi School Education Act, and which prior
permission has been held to be mandatory by the Supreme Court in its
recent judgment in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Director of Education and
Others, (2016) 6 SCC 541 Civil Appeal No. 1020/2011 decided on
13.4.2016; and as so observed by the Delhi School Tribunal in para 24 of its
judgment. Therefore, without actual permission having been taken or being
actually available, the act of the petitioner/school in removing the
respondent no.1 from services is violative of Section 8(2) of the Delhi
School Education Act read with ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court
in Raj Kumar's case (supra).
3. All the aforesaid aspects arise from the record and could not be
effectively disputed or challenged by the petitioner/school in this Court and
thus once the respondent no.1 was a confirmed employee and whose
services have not been terminated after following the due process of enquiry
as required under Rules 118 and 120 of the Delhi School Education Rules
and also that admittedly no disciplinary authority was constituted and which
took decision to remove the respondent no.1, and which aspects have to be
taken with the fact that no permission was obtained by the Director of
Education for removal of the respondent no.1, clearly, hence there is no
illegality found in the impugned judgment of the Delhi School Tribunal
allowing the appeal of the respondent no.1 and reinstating the respondent
no.1 in the services of the petitioner/school.
4. Dismissed.
JANUARY 06, 2017 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
ib
