113 (2 Cases)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 8^th September, 2025 DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL, JHAJJAR, HARYANA .…...Appellant(s)

V/s.

EDUCATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE, JHAJJAR AND OTHERS ......Respondent(s)

LPA-3041-2024 (O&M)

DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL, JHAJJAR, HARYANA .…...Appellant(s)

V/s.

EDUCATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE, JHAJJAR AND OTHERS ......Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Present Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocate, for the appellant(s).

Mr. Hemant Kakkar, Advocate for respondent No.2 in both the appeals.

****

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (Oral)

1. This order shall dispose of these two connected Appeals, as the issue involved in both these Appeals is common.

2. Both the appeals arise out of order dated 05.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Bench, whereby Writ Petition(s) filed by the appellant(s) have been dismissed, affirming the order of the Educational Tribunal for Educational Institute, Jhajjar, (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”).

3. The Tribunal has found the termination of concerned Teachers (respondents No.2 in both the Appeals) to be illegal and therefore, damages to the extent of `20,00,000/- has been awarded to them.

4. Tribunal’s order was challenged before the learned Single Bench on two grounds. The first ground was that the previous Appeal, filed by the concerned Teachers, was withdrawn without liberty to file a fresh and the second ground was that the quantum of damages was excessive. Learned Single Bench has non-suited the appellant(s) on both the grounds. So far as withdrawal of earlier appeal is concerned, learned Single Bench has noticed that specific application was filed before the Tribunal to withdraw the Appeal so as to file fresh appeal. Merely because liberty was not granted to file fresh appeal, the said fact has been held by the learned Single Bench not to be a valid ground to non-suit the concerned Teachers as strict Rules of the Civil Procedure Code are not applicable and even otherwise withdrawal of appeal was with a clear intent to enable the Teachers concerned to file a fresh appeal.

5. For coming to such view, learned Single Bench has given elaborate reasons in Para 6 of the impugned judgment, which are reproduced hereinafter:-

“6. It is an undisputed fact on record that the second respondent specifically pleaded in the applications) seeking withdrawal of earlier appeals) that they wanted to withdraw the same due to some technical error, only to file fresh appeals). Accordingly, the application(s) were accepted by the Tribunal and the appeals) were dismissed as withdrawn, which were filed again leading to passing of the impugned judgments. In these circumstances, objection to maintainability of appeals) filed by the second respondents) by invoking provisions of Order XXIII Rule 1 (4)(b) CPC, is liable to be rejected on the following two grounds.

6.1 Firstly, the Tribunal has been constituted, vide Haryana Government Education Department notification dated 02.03.2015, for redressal of all service disputes of employees working in aided/unaided educational institutions. This has been done in terms of law laid down by the Supreme Court in TMA Pai Foundation and others v. State of Karnataka and others, 2002(8) SCC 481, the relevant paragraph whereof reads as under;

64. ... Normally, the aggrieved party would approach a court of law and seek redress. In the case of educational institutions, however, we are of the opinion that requiring a teacher or a member of the staff to go to a civil court for the purpose of seeking redress is not in the interest of general education. Disputes between the management and the staff of educational institutions must be decided speedily, and without the excessive incurring of costs. It would, therefore, be appropriate that an educational Tribunal be set up in each district in a State, to enable the aggrieved teacher to file an appeal, unless there already exists suc