(1.) BY this writ petition, petitioner -school impugns the judgment of the Delhi School Tribunal (DST) dated 21.12.2011. By the impugned judgment DST accepted the appeal which was filed by the respondent no.1 herein, and which appeal questioned the action of the petitioner -school in illegally terminating the services of the respondent no.1. Whereas the case of the respondent no.1 was that she was wrongly prevented from performing her duties and was removed from the school without following the procedure prescribed under the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973, the case of the petitioner -school was that the respondent no.1 had resigned from services on 4.7.2005 by submitting her letter of resignation. The Tribunal decided the appeal by holding that respondent no.1 had not resigned and petitioner -school was guilty in illegally removing respondent No. 1 from the school.
(2.) BEFORE me learned senior counsel for the petitioner has urged the following grounds in support of the petition for setting aside the impugned judgment: -
(3.) IN view of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shashi Gaur (supra), in my opinion, there can be no doubt that once a teacher/employee of a school takes up a case that she has been illegally removed, this aspect very much falls within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The mere fact that in determining this issue the Tribunal has also to consider that whether or not the teacher or employee has resigned or not cannot mean that Tribunal will have no jurisdiction because it is only on arriving at a conclusion that there is no valid resignation, would thereafter the Tribunal arrive at a decision of illegal removal of a teacher/employee of a school. Surely, a teacher/employee who is illegally removed, will naturally approach the Tribunal as per the ratio of the Supreme Court in the case of Shashi Gaur (supra), and surely the defence which is laid out by the school to justify the action of the school would not mean that the issue will not remain that of removal of the teacher/employee from the school. In fact, it is reiterated that it is because of the assertion of the respondent no.1 that she has been illegally removed from the school, and which case has been accepted by the Tribunal, that the impugned judgment has been passed in favour of respondent no.1 and against the petitioner.