RADHEY SHAM SHARMA Vs. LT GOVERNOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are teachers in respondent No. 4 School. The school is managed and run by respondent No. 5 - Society. Earlier too, there was litigation between the petitioners and the school, lt was subject-matter of Writ Petition No. 4203/94. In that petition the allegations of the teachers were that they were forced to refund the amount of salaries paid to them by account payee cheques and they had been forced to give resignation letters. The alleged resignation letters were, however, not found in the record of the respondents 4 and 5. The Court, therefore, while disposing of that petition on 5th July, 1995 directed that in view of the fact that no resignation letters have been found in the record of the respondents, the respondents will not be able to use any such alleged resignation letters, lt was further observed that even otherwise such resignation letters cannot be accepted by the respondents without approval of the Directorate of Education under the Delhi Education Act and the Rules.

(2.) The main prayer in the present writ petition is that respondents 1 to 3, namely. Director of Education etc. be directed to exercise power under Section 20 of Delhi Education Act to take over the management of the school and the same shall be run by the said respondents i.e. respondents 1 to 3. The petitioners have alleged serious acts of omission and commission by the school management. On 20th November, 1995 the same Bench which had disposed of the earlier writ petition on 5th July, 1995, while issuing notice to respondents to show cause why rule nisi be not issued, directed the school to release the salary of the petitioners which is due to them according to the school. On 10th April, 1996 on C.M. 2555 /96 this Court directed respondents 4 and 5 not to close the school without the prior approval of Directorate of Education. On or about 10th May, 1996 the petitioner filed C.M. 3481 /96 seeking directions to respondents 4 and 5 to open the school and run the same forthwith failing which respondents 2 and 3 be directed to take over the control and management of the school and run the same in future. It has been, inter alia, pleaded by the petitioners that before alleged closure of the school no approval was sought by respondents 4and5 from the Directorate of Education.Infact, there is no dispute that such an approval was not taken. The case of respondents 1 to 3 also is that no approval was accorded by them for the closure of the school. The case of the school also is not that any such approval was granted byrespondents I to 3. Their case at the highest is that vide communication dated 1st March, 1996 they had informed the Directorate of Education regarding closure of the school with effect from 31st March, 1996 and this letter was followed by another letter dated 29th March, 1996. The receipt of these communications is being disputed by Directorate of Education. The Delhi Education Act and the Rules framed thereunder require prior approval of Directorate of Education before closure of the school. On 10th April, 1996 we also directed respondents 4 and 5 not to close the school without such prior approval. The case made out that the school was closed prior to 10th April, 1996, prima fade, seems to be wholly misconceived. The school could not be closed without receipt of approval from Directorate of Education. Further, the respondents 4 and 5 in regard to the property where from the school was being run has taken the stand that its possession was handed over to owner on 1st April, 1996. The person to whom the possession is alleged to have been handed over is none other than the wife of Manager of the school. On a letter purported to have been sent by husband to the wife and bearing the date 29th March, 1996 the endorsement is said to have been made by the wife that she has taken over possession of the building on 1st April, 1996.

(3.) The case of the Directorate of Education is that the alleged closure of the school by respondents 4 and 5 is illegal. On 26th September, 1996 we adjounred the matter to 29th October, 1996 so that the respondents 1 to 3 may consider what action can be taken against respondents 4 and 5 under the circumstances aforesaid. In that order, we have also said that "The contention of the petitioner that the alleged closure with effect from 31st March, 1996 was illegal and void, since admittedly, no approval as contemplated by Rule 46 was obtained and that the teachers continue to be in employment of the school and the alleged fraudulent handing over of the possession of the school by respondent No. 4 to the landlady which is none other than the wife of the Manager of the school and has no consequence in law, would be considered after the Administrator passes an order, if any, under Section 20 of the Act". We, however, directed in the said order that no interest would be created in the premises in which school was being run.