1. Termination of private school teacher for lack of qualification — Maintainability of appeal before Delhi School Tribunal under Section 11 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 1146
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SHASHI GAUR
Versus
NCT OF DELHI
Decided On : July 21, 2000
Important Points
An appeal is provided against an order of termination under sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Act, providing an efficacious remedy to teachers whose services are terminated by private institutions.
Subject
Employment Law - Termination of Employment
Act Referred
Headnote
Termination - Private School Teacher - The court held that an appeal is provided against an order of termination under sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Act, providing an efficacious remedy to teachers whose services are terminated by private institutions.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a teacher of a private school, had his services terminated allegedly due to lack of requisite qualification. The appellant contended that the order of termination did not come within the expression 'dismissal, removal or reduction in rank' under Section 8(3) of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court refused to interfere, citing the availability of an alternative remedy. The Division Bench confirmed the decision. The Supreme Court held that an appeal is provided against an order of termination under sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Act, providing an efficacious remedy to teachers whose services are terminated by private institutions.
Issues: The main issue was whether a teacher of a private school could move the Delhi School Tribunal against the order of termination, constituted under Section 11 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 8 and concluded that an appeal is provided against an order of termination under sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Act, providing an efficacious remedy to teachers whose services are terminated by private institutions.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of with the observation that an appeal is provided against an order of termination under sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Act, and the appellant was directed to approach the Tribunal for further proceedings.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether termination for lack of qualification constitutes dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank under Section 8(3) of the Act, permitting an appeal to the Tribunal. (Para 5 , 6 )
3. The Tribunal provides an efficacious remedy against management whims; a narrow construction of Section 8(3) would deprive teachers of essential protection against termination. (Para 7 )
4. Section 8(3) of the Act permits appeals against dismissal, removal, reduction in rank, and termination otherwise, except where service ends by efflux of time. (Para 8 )
5. Appeal disposed of; High Court's refusal to entertain the writ application upheld, with the matter to be decided by the Tribunal. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 )
6. Does Section 8(3) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, allow appeals against termination not categorized as dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank?
Yes. The court held that an appeal is provided not only against major penalties like dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank but also against termination otherwise, unless the service ended by efflux of time. (Para 8 )
7. Does the availability of an alternative remedy automatically oust the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution?
No. While the court upheld the High Court's discretion not to entertain the writ application, it disagreed with the conclusion that an alternative remedy ousts the jurisdiction of the court under Article 226. (Para 8 )
8. What is the purpose of the Tribunal constituted under Section 11 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973?
The Tribunal was established to provide an efficacious remedy to teachers of recognized private schools who might be terminated due to the caprices and whims of the school management. (Para 7 )
( 1 ) LEAVE granted.
( 2 ) THE short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether a teacher of a private school whose services stood terminated, not as a measure of penalty, but on account of the fact that he allegedly did not have the requisite qualification, could move the Delhi School Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") against the order of termination, constituted under Section 11 of the Delhi School "education Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") or not.
( 3 ) THE appellant being of the view that the impugned order would not come within the expression "dismissal, removal or reduction in rank" used in sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Act, directly approached the High Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
( 4 ) A learned Single Judge of the High Court came to the conclusion that availability of an alternative remedy ousts the jurisdiction of the Court and, therefore, refused to interfere. The appellant approached the Division Bench in LPA and the order of the learned Single Judge having been confirmed, the appellant has approached this Court.
( 5 ) MR Das, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant contends that Section 8 (3) provides for an appeal against an order of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank and not against any order of termination as is apparent from the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of section 8, which provides for obtaining prior approval of the Director before dismissal, removal or reduction in rank or otherwise terminating the services of an employee of a recognised private school. The very fact of absence of the expression "otherwise termination" available in sub-section (2) from the provisions of sub-section (3) clearly demonstrates that against an order of termination which does not come within the expression "dismissal, removal or reduction in rank", the legislature have not provided for an appeal to the tribunal constituted under Section 11 of the Act.
( 6 ) IN support of this contention, the counsel also placed reliance on Rule 117 explanation which indicates that replacement of a teacher who was not qualified on the date of his appointment by a qualified one will not amount to a penalty within the meaning of the said Rule. The learned counsel also placed before us the observations made by this court in the case of Principal v. Presiding Officer wherein this Court had observed that for applicability of the provisions of Section 11 two conditions must coexist, namely, (i) that the employee should be an employee of a recognised private school, and (ii) that he should be visited with either of the three major penalties, i. e. , dismissal, removal or reduction in rank.
( 7 ) THIS judgment and the interpretation put to the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of Section 8 undoubtedly is of sufficient force. But, the question for our consideration would be that, would it be appropriate for us to give a narrow construction to sub-section (3) of Section 8 thereby taking the teachers whose services were terminated not by way of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank but otherwise, out of the purview of the Tribunal constituted under Section 11 of the Act. The statute has provided for a tribunal to confer a remedy on the teachers who are often taken out of service by the caprices and whims of the management of the private institutions. The governmental authorities having been given certain control over the action of such private management, if an appeal to the Tribunal is not provided to such an employee, then he has to knock the doors of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution which is a discretionary one. The remedy provided by way of an appeal to the Tribunal is undoubtedly a more efficacious remedy to an employee whose services stand terminated after serving the institution for a number of years, as in the present case where the services are terminated after 14 years.
( 8 ) IN this view of
