PRINCIPAL Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against an order dated January 18, 1977 passed by the Delhi School Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in Appeal No. 22 of 1975 purporting to have been preferred under sub-sec. (3) of S. 8 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") by Kunj Behari Lal, respondent No. 2 herein.

(2.) It appears that respondent No. 2 who is an M. Com. but does not possess a Training Degree or a recognised Diploma in Education or three years" experience of teaching intermediate or higher classes or a recognised training certificate was appointed as Commerce Teacher on two years" probation in the pay scale of Rs. 418-10-438-15-513-20-613-25-788-32-820 in the M. C. Jindal Public School, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the School") vide Memorandum dated July 26, 1972 to teach the subject of Commerce to 9th and 10th classes. The terms and conditions governing the appointment inter alia provided that the services of respondent No. 2 were "liable to be terminated with one month"s notice on either side or month"s salary in lieu of notice without assigning any reason during the probation period and three months thereafter". Pursuant to the warning contained in the letters dated November 2, 1972, December 24, 1973, and August 4, 1975 of the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Board"), to which the school is affiliated since 1971 that respondent No.2 was not qualified to teach the subject of Commerce to higher secondary classes as per the minimum qualifications laid down by the Board, the Manager of the School served respondent No. 2 with three months" notice on August 8, 1975, informing him that his services would not be required by the School with effect from November 8, 1975. On September 8, 1975, the Manager of the School gave another notice to respondent No. 2 enclosing therewith a cheque for Rs. 1,300 (drawn on Syndicate Bank, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi) by way of the latter"s salary for two months i.e. from September 8, 1975 to November 7, 1975 in lieu of the remaining period of two months of the aforesaid notice dated August 8, 1975 and relieved him of his duties with effect from the afternoon of that date. Aggrieved by these notices, respondent No. 2 filed the aforesaid appeal before the Tribunal asserting inter alia that after the expiry of the probationary period of two years, he was confirmed by the School authorities in the post of Commerce Teacher in July, 1974; that despite sincere and hard work put in by him, his services were terminated on the basis of false and baseless charges because of the personal grudge/malice which the Principal of the School bore towards him; that the plea of the School authorities that he was not academically qualified was incorrect; that the Manager and the Principal who were fully cognizant of clause 18 of Chapter 4 of the Central Board of Secondary Education Hand Book having issued the letter of appointment and subsequently that of confirmation, were estopped from pleading that he (respondent No. 2) was not qualified to teach the higher classes; that the said clause could at the most be construed to imply that he was not qualified to teach higher classes but the same could not be made a ground for terminating his services and that after completion of three years of teaching experience in the School, the disqualification, if any, had disappeared. It was further pleaded by respondent No. 2 that his services could not be terminated without the prior approval of the Director of Education as provided by sub-section (2) of S. 8 of the Act and without following the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. On these pleas, respondent No. 2 sought annulment of the aforesaid notices dated August 8, 1975 and September 8, 1975 and a declaration that he continued to be in the service of the School. The Manager and the Principal of the School contested the appeal contending inter alia that since the School was neither an aided one nor had been recognised by the appropriate authority, the Act and the rules framed thereunder were not applicable to it and consequently the appeal was incompetent and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the same; that the appeal was even otherwise incompetent as the impugned order did not impose any of the penalties of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank on respondent No. 2 but was an order simpliciter of termination of his services and the conditions necessary for the applicability of S. 8 (3) of the Act under which it purported to have been filed were not satisfied; and that in the circumstances of the case the prior approval of the Director of Education for terminating the service of respondent No. 2 was not at all necessary. The Manager and the Principal of the School further pleaded that although respondent No. 2 was appointed on probation for two years, no letter of confirmation was issued to him; that the services of respondent No. 2 were terminated as they were told by means of the aforesaid letters by the Board to which the School was affiliated since 1971 that the respondent should be replaced by a qualified teacher because he did not possess the prescribed qualification to teach the subject of Commerce; that respondent No. 2 was paid a sum of Rs. 1,300 vide cheque No. 454889 dated September 8, 1975 as his salary for two months from September 8, 1975 to November 7, 1975 in lieu of th remaining period of the notice; and that they were obliged to dispense with the services of respondent No. 2 as despite the opportunity afforded to him by continuing him in service on temporary basis to enable him to get himself duly qualified, he did not care to do so. The allegations of mala fides made by respondent No. 2 were also denied by the Manager and the Principal of the School. It was further contended by them that since the instant case was not governed by the act and the rules framed thereunder, the question of obtaining the prior approval of the Director of Education did not arise. On the appeal filed by respondent No. 2 being allowed by the Tribunal, the Principal and the Manager of the School filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court challenging the Tribunals" order which was dismissed as withdrawn on February 24, 1977. Thereupon they approached this Court for special leave to appeal which was granted vide order dated August 25, 1977.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel on which sides who have reiterated the contentions raised by the parties before the Tribunal.