Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
Prabhu Dayal Public School and Others – Appellants
Versus
Anirudh Singh and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 2829 of 1996
Decided On : 13-07-2011
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Raj Birbal, Ms. Raavi Birbal, Mr. Mahinder Singh, Mr. Ankur Goel.
For the Respondents: Prakash Gautam, Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Ms. Latika Chaudhary.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the concept of retrenchment is not alien to the DSEA and DSER, and an unaided recognized school is not required to seek prior approval of the DoE for dismissal or removal from service of an employee.
Headnote:
Retrenchment - Unaided School - Delhi School Education Act, 1973, Rule 47 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 - The court discussed the concept of retrenchment in the context of an unaided school and its compliance with the Delhi School Education Act and Rules. It highlighted the legal provisions under Section 8(2) of the DSEA and Rule 47 of the DSER, emphasizing that the concept of retrenchment is not alien to the DSEA. The court also referenced the case of Kathuria Public School vs. Director of Education, 2005 VI AD (Del) 893, to establish the legal principle that an unaided recognized school is not required to seek prior approval of the DoE for dismissal or removal from service of an employee.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, an unaided school, retrenched the services of Respondent No. 1, a Transport Officer, due to the closure of the transport workshop. The School Tribunal set aside the retrenchment order, citing bias and lack of inquiry. The court stayed the order and eventually set it aside, finding that the retrenchment did not require prior approval of the DoE and was lawful.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the concept of retrenchment is not alien to the DSEA and DSER, and the retrenchment of Respondent No. 1 did not require prior approval of the DoE. It also concluded that there was no bias in the retrenchment decision and that the post of Transport Officer stood abolished due to the closure of the Transport Department.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the retrenchment of Respondent No. 1, the requirement of prior approval of the DoE, and the alleged bias in the retrenchment decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the legal provisions under the DSEA and DSER, as well as the application of the legal principle established in the case of Kathuria Public School vs. Director of Education, 2005 VI AD (Del) 893.
Final Decision: The court set aside the School Tribunal's order, allowing the retrenchment of Respondent No. 1, and held that the retrenchment was lawful and did not require prior approval of the DoE. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
1. The Petitioner Prabhu Dayal Public School (hereinafter the School) challenges an order dated 25th June 1996 of the School Tribunal, Delhi allowing the appeal filed by Respondent No. 1. By the impugned order the School Tribunal set aside the order dated 3rd January, 1992 passed by the School retrenching the services of Respondent No. 1 and directing his reinstatement as Transport Officer or absorption on any suitable post or equal status with all the service benefits.
2. The Petitioner is an unaided school in terms of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (DSEA) and the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (DSER). Respondent No. 1 was appointed as a Transport Officer in a School on 1st February, 1988. It is stated that at that point in time the School had a large fleet of 17 buses and a full-fledged transport workshop for maintenance and repairs etc. of the buses. The Transport Officer's post was created in order to have effective supervision over the fleet of buses. The transport workshop had drivers, conductors and staff totalling almost 40 persons. It is stated that over the years the management of the school experienced difficulties in providing transport to the students and therefore it decided to close down the transport workshop. It decided instead to utilize the service of contractors for supply of buses on contract basis with their own drivers and staff etc. The Transport Sub-Committee of the School submitted a report which was considered by its management on 22 June 1991 and it unanimously decided to abolish the post of the Transport Officer. Consequently, it decided to retrench the Services of Respondent No. 1.
3. The management of the School initially proceeded on the footing that the retrenchment of Respondent No. 1 with effect from 26 June 1991 did not require obtaining approval of the Directorate of Education (DoE). Respondent No. 1 at that stage filed appeal No. 22 of 1991 before the School Tribunal. Meanwhile, the School was advised to obtain approval from the DoE. It issued a letter dated 1st July, 1991 to Respondent No. 1 in super-session of its earlier letter dated 22nd June, 1991 stating that till such time the approval was not obtained from the DoE, Respondent No. 1 would be treated as continuing in employment. Although he would be paid salary no work could be allotted to him. On the basis of the above development, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the School Tribunal on 17th January 1991.
4. On 31st December 1991, the DoE conveyed its approval to the School for retrenchment of Respondent No. 1. On that basis by the impugned letter dated 3rd January 1992 the School informed Respondent No. 1 that his retrenchment would now take effect from 7th January 1992. Thereupon Respondent No. 1 filed appeal No. 5 of 1992 before the School Tribunal.
5. By the impugned order dated 25th June 1996 the Tribunal allowed the appeal and held that the concept of retrenchment was foreign to DSEA and DSER and had been used by the School "deliberately, perhaps, to give an impression that the termination did not amount to dismissal or removal from service." Further, it was held that the removal of Respondent No. 1 was motivated by bias since while he was serving in the School two other employees, viz. Colonel J.R. Kochhar and Shri Jagmohan Singh had been assigned the functions of the Transport Officer. It was held that retrenchment was in fact a removal from service and inasmuch as no inquiry in terms of Rule 120 of the DSER was held.
6. On 27th March 1997 while issuing rule in the matter, this Court stayed the impugned order subject to the Petitioner depositing 50% of the awarded amount in this Court. Respondent No. 1 was permitted to withdraw the said amount on furnishing a personal bond to the satisfaction of the Registrar.
7. This Court has heard the submissions of Ms. Raavi Birbal appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. Prakash Gautam for Respondent No. 1 and Ms. Avnish Ahlawat for Respondent No. 4.
8. At the time when the P
