JAIN SHIKSHA SAMITI Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 28th September, 2001 in C.W.5983/2001.

(2.) The second respondent was working as a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) in the appellant's school. On 9th August, 1984 she was placed under suspension. On 16th November, 1984, the second respondent was charge-sheeted. An opportunity was given to the second respondent to furnish her reply to the charges. On 17th December, 1984, the appellant issued a notice to the second respondent as no reply had been received from her. The notice also called upon the second respondent to show cause why her services be not terminated. Even she did not respond to the aforesaid show cause notice. In the circumstances, the Managing Committee of the school in its meeting held on 26th December, 1984 decided to terminate the services of the second respondent. Consequent upon the decision of the Managing Committee, the services of the second respondent were terminated by the appellant vide its order dated 27th December, 1984.

(3.) Aggrieved by the order of termination, the second respondent filed a writ petition, being writ petition no.487/1985, before this Court on 18th May, 1998. The writ petition of the. second respondent was treated as an appeal under Section 8(3) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (for short the 'Act') and was forwarded to the Appellate Authority, the Delhi School Tribunal, constituted under the Act. The appeal was registered as Appeal No.14/1998. The Delhi School Tribunal by its order dated 13th August, 1998 accepted the appeal and directed the appellant to reinstate the second respondent with all consequential benefits. The Tribunal passed the aforesaid order as it was of the opinion that the services of the second respondent were terminated in violation of Section 8(3) of the Act read with Rule 120 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1974 (for short 'the Rules') inasmuch as the appellant did not obtain prior approval of the Director of Education before terminating the services of the second respondent. Pursuant to the order of the Delhi School Tribunal, the second respondent was reinstated by the appellant school. The arrears of salary, however, were not paid to her.