PRABHU DAYAL PUBLIC SCHOOL Vs. ANIRUDH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner Prabhu Dayal Public School (hereinafter 'the School') challenges an order dated 25th June 1996 of the School Tribunal, Delhi allowing the appeal filed by Respondent No. 1. By the impugned order the School Tribunal set aside the order dated 3rd January, 1992 passed by the School retrenching the services of Respondent No. 1 and directing his reinstatement as Transport Officer or absorption on any suitable post or equal status with all the service benefits.

(2.) The Petitioner is an unaided school in terms of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 ('DSEA') and the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 ('DSER'). Respondent No. 1 was appointed as a Transport Officer in a School on 1st February, 1988. It is stated that at that point in time the School had a large fleet of 17 buses and a full-fledged transport workshop for maintenance and repairs etc., of the buses. The Transport Officer's post was created in order to have effective supervision over the fleet of buses. The transport workshop had drivers, conductors and staff totalling almost 40 persons. It is stated that over the years the management of the school experienced difficulties in providing transport to the students and therefore it decided to close down the transport workshop. It decided instead to utilize the service of contractors for supply of buses on contract basis with their own drivers and staff etc. The Transport Sub-Committee of the School submitted a report which was considered by its management on 22th June 1991 and it unanimously decided to abolish the post of the Transport Officer. Consequently, it decided to retrench the Services of Respondent No. 1.

(3.) The management of the School initially proceeded on the footing that the retrenchment of Respondent No. 1 with effect from 26th June 1991 did not require obtaining approval of the Directorate of Education ('DoE'). Respondent No. 1 at that stage filed appeal No. 22 of 1991 before the School Tribunal. Meanwhile, the School was advised to obtain approval from the DoE. It issued a letter dated 1st July, 1991 to Respondent No. 1 in supersession of its earlier letter dated 22nd June, 1991 stating that till such time the approval was not obtained from the DoE, Respondent No. 1 would be treated as continuing in employment. Although he would be paid salary no work could be allotted to him. On the basis of the above development, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the School Tribunal on 17th January 1991.