(1.) CERTAIN litigants, as also the Advocates representing them, unfortunately play games of hide and seek with the Courts. It is time that Courts come down with very heavy hands on these litigants. I am observing this because this case was listed three days back on 3.12.2013 when arguments were advanced on behalf of respondent no.1/school as to the validity or otherwise of the order of the Director of Education dated 3.7.2012 filed as Annexure P -3 at page 81 of the paper book of this writ petition limited to the aspect of powers of the Director of Education under Rule 46 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973. By the order dated 3.7.2012, the respondent no.1 -school was allowed to be closed, however only on compliance of certain conditions. It was argued before me on behalf of respondent no.1/school that provision of Rule 46 of the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 did not give power to the Director of Education to impose conditions while allowing closure of the schools. At that stage, after hearing counsel for the parties I passed the following order on 3.12.2013: -
(2.) TODAY therefore arguments were to be restricted on the issue of the applicability of the ratio of the judgment in the case of Anjali Sood and Ors. Vs. Director of Education and Ors. 161 (2009) DLT 214 and as to whether the same can be distinguished for not being applicable for deciding the present writ petition. Also, appointment letters were called to find out whether the respondent no.1/school which is run by the society which has other schools had appointed the petitioners with terms and conditions as to whether or not they can or cannot be shifted to other schools run by the same society. This second aspect was only in addition to the aspect of applicability of Anjali Sood's case (supra) and is not material to decide this petition in view of Anjali Sood's case (supra).
(3.) LET us at this stage refer to the order of the Director of Education dated 3.7.2012, and the same reads as under: -