The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory requirement of prior approval from the Director of Education for termination of an employee of a recognized private school, as provided under Section 8(2) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973.

JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J.

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal (the "LPA") has been filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent Act assailing the judgment dated 14.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C.) No. 10523/2019, titled Smt. Anjna Luthra v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. (the "Writ Petition").

2. The learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 14.11.2022 allowed the underlying Writ Petition preferred by Respondent No. 3 and directed the payment of Respondent No. 3's full salary for the intervening period between 13.11.2019 and 30.09.2021 i.e. the date of superannuation; and the payment of terminal dues to Respondent No. 3 subsequent to her superannuation on 30.09.2021.

3. The facts of the case reveal that the Respondent No. 3, started her service career by joining Dayanand Model School (the "Appellant School") as an Assistant Teacher on 14.07.1986. She was appointed, keeping in view the statutory provisions as contained under the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (the "DSE Act") and the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (the "DSE Rules").

4. Thereafter on 01.12.1991, Respondent No. 3 was promoted as a Trained Graduate Teacher ("TGT") in science. Undisputedly, Respondent No. 3 has never been served with any adverse Annual Confidential Report ("ACR"). On the contrary, as reflected in the underlying Writ Petition, Respondent No. 3 has worked with sincerity and devotion.

5. Respondent No. 3 was placed in charge as officiating principal of the Appellant School between 2004-2005. Thereafter between (i) July 2009 and December 2009; and (ii) January 2010 and July 2010, she has worked as officiating `Vice Principal/Head of School' for the Appellant.

6. The facts of the case further reveal that by an order dated 13.11.2019, Respondent No. 3 was placed under suspension (the "Suspension Order"). Thereafter, a charge sheet dated 18.01.2020 was also issued in the matter (the "Charge-Sheet"). Disciplinary proceedings against Respondent No. 3 emanated from the Charge-Sheet. A writ petition i.e., W.P.(C) No. 5738/2020 was preferred by Respondent No. 3 challenging the validity of the Charge-Sheet, praying for inter alia the following reliefs:

"a) allow the writ petition and be pleased to issue an appropriate order or writ directing the respondents no. 1 to 4 not to take any coercive/adverse action against petitioner till she retires in September, 2021 and permit her to complete her term as a Vice Principal/HOS of respondent no.4 school in accordance with law; and

(b) direct the respondents no. l to 4 to ensure smooth running of respondent no.4 school by petitioner as Vice Principal/HOS and look into the matter and ensure that petitioner is not harassed/victimised and is compelled to tender her resignation or to take voluntary retirement from her service as threatened by respondent no.3 & 4; and

c) pass an appropriate writ order or direction declaring that the order dated 13.11.2019 passed by defendants no.3 and 4 against petitioner is an illegal and wrong order which has been passed contrary to law and the same may kindly be set aside/quashed by this Hon'ble Court and it be also directed by Hon'ble Court that petitioner continues to be the Vice Principal/HOS of the respondent no.4 school till she retires and she should be allowed to complete her tenure as Vice Principal/HOS of respondent no.4 school up to September 2021 without any obstruction or hindrance caused by respondents; and respondent no.3 & 4 be directed to pay all legitimate dues of petitioner during the pendency of present writ petition.

(d) allow that in view of Section 8(4) of DSE Act, the petitioner be allowed to join back her job in respondent no.4 school as HOS/Vice Principal as the suspension order dated 13.11.2019 issued by respondents no.3 & 4 has automatically lapsed as respondents no.3 & 4 school have not been granted any approval within the period of 15 days as per law and thus suspension order has automatically ceased to operate and p