ROSETTA WILLIAMS Vs. DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff seeks a declaration that the order of suspension made against her, by the defendant (hereafter called "the DPS School" is null and void.

(2.) The suit contends that the plaintiff is a renowned educationist, with several achievements to her credit and also that she is recipient of several awards, etc. It is submitted that the DPS school has been regarded as a success in the education field, and has affiliation with the CIE-Cambridge, London. The suit also says that every school in Delhi comes within the ambit of the definition "school" under the Delhi School Education Act (hereafter "the Act"). For this, the plaint refers to Section 2 (u) of the Act. It is stated that the Principal of the school is to be regarded as the head of the school, and entitled to be treated as such, with all the powers, conferred for the purpose. The suit refers to Clause XVII of the Memorandum of Association of the DPS Society. The suit also adverts to Rule 59 framed under the Act, which talks of the scheme of Management of every recognized school; the managing or governing body would include the Head of school. The plaintiff also refers to guideline No. 2 relating to the school, to say that she is an integral part of the school's managing body.

(3.) The suit further states that the principal is an ex-officio member of the Managing Committee of the school, and that such committee was constituted on 7-9-2004, with Shri V.M. Thapar as its chairman. By dint of the plaintiff's effort, says the suit, the DPS society's pupil population reached 900. It is submitted that under the plaintiff's leadership and guidance, the school achieved laurels; she relies on press clippings of the time, during early 2006, as well as a letter dated 28-1-2006, issue on the school's behalf, commending her for the contribution in respect of the O level performance achieved by the students at that time. The plaintiff also relies on other documents, such as copies of proposals made by her in relation to the school's improvement, and the fact that she was nominated as member of the Managing Committee of another DPS school, at Allahabad. In sum, it is argued that the plaintiff's contribution was substantial for the growth and excellence of the school, for which the latter acknowledged her work, at every stage.