LAWS(DLH)-2015-9-16

NEELAM KAPUR Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AND ORS.

Decided On September 03, 2015
Neelam Kapur Appellant
V/S
Director of Education and Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition impugns the communication dated 25th September, 2013 of the respondent No. 5 Diocese of Delhi (The Church of North India) informing the petitioner that the Delhi Diocesan Executive Committee in its meeting held on 6th September, 2013 has appointed Rev. Ashok Kumar David as the Manager of Queen Mary's School in place of the petitioner.

(2.) IT is the contention of the petitioner, appointed as the Manager of the said School with effect from 31st August, 2007, that her removal as the Manager of the School, in the said manner, without any notice to show cause and without being afforded any opportunity of being heard and without any enquiry, is illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and without jurisdiction and in violation of the rules and regulations and the Scheme of Management of the School.

(3.) THE counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 7, namely (i) The Governing Body, Queen Mary's School; (ii) The Managing Committee, Queen Mary's School; (iii) The Helen Jerwood Memorial Education Society of the Diocese of Delhi of the Church of North India; (iv) Diocese of Delhi (The Church of North India); (v) Sh. Sunil K. Singh, The Chairman, COM & Bishop of Delhi, Diocese of Delhi; and, (vi) Revd. Ashok K. David, C/o Diocese of Delhi, states, (a) that the petitioner was the Principal of Queen Mary's School; (b) that with effect from 31st August, 2007 she was given additional charge as Manager of the School; (c) that the petitioner, on attaining the age of superannuation, retired from the post of Principal of the School in August, 2013 and accordingly, simultaneously, the respondent No. 7 Rev. Ashok K. David was appointed as the Manager of the School in her place. On specific enquiry from the counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 7, whether there was any reason in the nature of stigma or misconduct for removal of the petitioner as Manager of the School, the counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 7 states that it was not even a removal as it was felt that the petitioner having ceased to be the Principal, could not continue as the Manager of the School.