Judgment:-

Altamas Kabir, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The Appellant No.1, Samarth Shiksha Samiti, is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and was established with the object of catering to the educational needs of society. In fulfillment of its object, the Appellant-Society established and began running several recognized schools all over Delhi in the name of Bal Mandirs. One such school is Mahashya Chunni Lal Saraswati Bal Mandir situated at Hari Nagar, Delhi, the Appellant No.2 herein.

3. On 9th May, 1992, the Society (hereinafter referred to as `the Samiti) appointed the Respondent No.1, Shri Bir Bahadur Singh Rathour, as a Lower Division Clerk and posted him in the Appellant No.2 School. From the appointment letter issued to the Respondent No.2 by way of an Office Memorandum dated 9th May, 1992, it will be apparent that he was appointed by the Samiti and was an employee of the Samiti. Condition No.4 of the terms and conditions of his appointment also indicates that during his service period, the respondent could be transferred to the Samiti or to any of the Bal Mandirs managed by the Samiti. Condition No.6 provides that during his period of service, the Respondent No.1 would have to abide by the discipline of the Samiti. Condition No.8 enjoins the Respondent No.1, while reposing trust in the aims and objects of the Samiti, to participate in all activities organized by the Samiti with devotion. Condition No.11 prescribes that the Respondent No.1 would have to obey all the rules as mentioned in Chapter-9 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973. However, what is of consequence is Condition No.15 which provides as follows:-

"15. In case he failed to comply with the aforesaid conditions and the rules as mentioned in 123 of Delhi Education Act the Samiti will have full right to remove him from service according to the law."

4. As will be evident from the aforesaid conditions, the Respondent No.1 was an employee, not of the School, but of the Samiti, though he was posted in the School as a Lower Division Clerk.

5. On 9th August, 1999, the Respondent No.1 was promoted as Upper Division Clerk and was posted at the same School at Hari Nagar. Such promotion being ad-hoc in nature, the same was regularized on 18th September, 2000 with effect from 1st August, 2000.

6. It appears that in September, 2003, interviews were held for the post of Superintendent Grade II and a list of selected candidates was drawn up by the Selection Committee and out of the said selected candidates, only the name of one Shri Arun Kumar was recommended for the said post. According to the Respondent No.1, he too submitted a representation for promotion to the said post and, although, his case was recommended by the Manager of the School to the General Secretary of the Appellant No.1-Samiti, not only was he not granted such promotion, but by an order dated 16th July, 2005, he was transferred from the School to the office of the Appellant No.1-Samiti. Subsequently, on 9th September, 2005, in an incident involving the Respondent No.1 and one Shri Shiv Nath Pandey, an order of suspension was issued against the Respondent No.1 by the Appellant No.1 on 21st September, 2005. While the disciplinary inquiry was pending, the Respondent No.1 filed a writ petition challenging the transfer order dated 16th July, 2005; the suspension order dated 21st September, 2005; the charge-sheet dated 29th September, 2005 and the letter dated 26th October, 2005, initiating the departmental enquiry against him.

7. The writ petition filed by the Respondent No.1 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court on 3rd November, 2006. On an appeal preferred by the Respondent No.1, notice was issued to the appellants in the month of January, 2007. In the appeal, it was contended on behalf of Respondent No.1 that his services were governed not by the rules and regulations of the Samiti but by the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, and the Rules framed there un