Delhi High Court
Riva Singh vs School Management Of Ring Midways ... on 12 January, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: January 12, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 274/2018 & CM 1109/2018
+ W.P.(C) 277/2018 & CM 1144/2018
+ W.P.(C) 278/2018 & CM 1145/2018
+ W.P.(C) 279/2018 & CM 1146/2018
+ W.P.(C) 280/2018 & CM 1147/2018
+ W.P.(C) 289/2018 & CM 1201/2018
+ W.P.(C) 291/2018 & CM 1215/2018
+ W.P.(C) 293/2018 & CM 1218/2018
+ W.P.(C) 337/2018 & CM 1406/2018
+ W.P.(C) 338/2018 & CM 1407/2018
+ W.P.(C) 339/2018 & CM 1408/2018
+ W.P.(C) 343/2018 & CM 1410/2018
RIVA SINGH
VEERENDRA KUMAR
SHASHI RAWAT
JONIKA
SADAKAT ALI
LEENA BHATACHARYA
AMIYA BALA MOHAPATRA
ANJU VERMA
PRAKASH DAGAR
USHA RAWAT
KRISHNA
DAYA WATI .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rajesh Goswami and Ms.
Anita Goswami, Advocates
versus
SCHOOL MANAGEMENT OF RING MIDWAYS SENIOR
SECONDARY PUBLIC SCHOOL & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Naushad Ahmad Khan, ASC
and Mr. Rizwan, Advocate for respondent-
GNCTD (in I-28, 29 & 35)
W.P.(C) 274/2018 & connected matters Page 1 of 3
Ms. Jyoti Taneja, Advocate for respondent-
GNCTD (in I-30)
Mr. Shadan Farasat and Mr. Ahmed Said,
Advocates for respondent-DOE (in I-31)
Mr. Varun Nischal, Advocate for respondent-
DOE (in I-32)
Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, ASC and Ms. Niti Jain,
Advocate for respondent-DOE (in I-33, 38 &
40)
Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, Advocate for Mr.
D.Rajeshwar Rao, Advocate for respondent
No.3 (in I-39)
Mr. Ankur Chhibber and Mr. Bhanu Gupta,
Advocates for respondent-DOE (in I-41)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. In the above-captioned petitions, challenge is to impugned order of
2nd August, 2017 (Annexure P-1) vide which petitioner's Representation
under Section 121 of the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as the DSEAR, 1973) stands rejected with liberty
to petitioner to make Representation to either Manager or Principal of
School. Impugned order has been passed by the Chairman of respondent-
School.
2. Since the issue involved in these petitions is identical, therefore,
these petitions have been heard together and by this common order, they
are being disposed of.
3. To assail impugned order, learned counsel for petitioners draws
attention of this Court to a statement (Annexure P-9) made by the
Chairman of respondent-School on 15th September, 2017 to the effect that
he is not authorized to operate the bank account of respondent-School as
said bank account can be operated only by ex-Manager of respondent-
School. So, it is submitted that rejection of petitioner's Representation
under Section 121 of the DSEAR, 1973 by the Chairman of respondent-
School is arbitrary and it needs to be struck down with a direction to
respondent-School to expeditiously decide aforesaid Representation
afresh.
4. At the outset, it was put to petitioners' counsel as to why petitioner
cannot approach the Delhi School Tribunal to seek the relief as sought in
this petition. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners have
already filed application under Section 27 of the DSEAR, 1973 to claim
the salary from the date of order of the Delhi School Tribunal till the date
of reinstatement and the said application is still pending.
5. Upon hearing, I find that Section 25 of the DSEAR, 1973 bars the
jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain such like petitions and the
appropriate course to be adopted is to file a fresh application under
Section 27 the DSEAR, 1973 before the Delhi School Tribunal to claim
relief as claimed in these petitions and the Tribunal shall expeditiously
consider it in accordance with the law.
6. The above-captioned petitions and the applications are accordingly
disposed of, while relegating petitioner to avail of remedies before the
Delhi School Tribunal.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 12, 2018
s
