Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
JAYATI MOZUMDAR – Appellant
Versus
MANAGING COMMITTEE SRI SATHYA SAI VIDYA VIHAR & ANR. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
JALAN PRATEEK JALAN, J.
W.P. (C) 15997/2024 & CM APPL. 5411/2025 (for directions)
1. The petitioner, who was appointed as a Post-Graduate Teacher in Chemistry in the respondent No.1-School [“the School”], has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking re-employment until 30.04.2025 in terms of the proviso to Rule 110(2) of the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 [“the Rules/DSEAR”].
2. The petitioner was appointed to the said post on 20.07.1998. Even though such a stipulation was perhaps unnecessary, the appointment letter [Annexure P-2 to the writ petition] contained an express provision that the terms and conditions of her appointment are governed by DSEAR.
3. The present case concerns the retirement age stipulated in Rule 110 of the Rules. The relevant provision is Rule 110(2), which is set out below:-
“110. Retirement age – xxxx xxxx xxxx
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), every teacher, laboratory assistant, Librarian, Principal or Vice-Principal employed in such school shall continue to hold office until he attains the age of 60 years:
Provided that where a teacher, Principal or Vice-Principal attains the age of superannu
Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is maintained only when a private dispute involves a public law element; the petitioner was entitled to re-employment under statutory provisions.
Employees of private educational institutions cannot invoke Article 226 for service disputes unless governed by statutory provisions, as established in St. Mary’s Education Society case.
AICTE regulations mandating a retirement age of 65 for faculty are statutory and binding on all institutions, including private ones.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable against a private unaided minority institution for service dis....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner, as an employee of a school with a public element in imparting education, was entitled to avail the remedy under Article 226 of....
Education Law - Employment and Re-Employment - Age of Retirement - Proviso to Statute 16.24 (2) carves out an exception to the main provision, inasmuch as it provides that a teacher whose date of sup....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a policy decision to recall a previous decision, taken in the larger public interest, is valid and not unreasonable. The principle of legitima....
The word 'shall' in Rule 110(2) of the Delhi School Education Rules obligates schools to grant re-employment to teachers who retire after November 1 until April 30 of the following year, ensuring edu....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
