ANIL KUMAR SHARMA & OTHER EMPLOYEES AND GUARDIAN OF STUDENTS OF BAL VIKAS SCHOOL Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, petitioners are vaguely described as Anil Kumar Sharma and other employees and guardian of students of respondent-school. Anil Kumar Sharma is said to be Vice-Principal of the respondent-school, who was dismissed on 13th February, 2012. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that Delhi School Tribunal has directed reinstatement of Anil Kumar Sharma and others. To submit so, attention of this Court is drawn to order of 10th July, 2015 (Annexure P-13) passed by Delhi School Tribunal. To assert locus to maintain this petition against de-recognition of respondent-school, petitioners' counsel places reliance upon a decision of coordinate Bench of this Court in Surajit Nundy and Ors. Vs. Management of Mirambika Free Progress School and Ors.,2016 SCCOnLine(Del) 3782. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that an application (Annexure P-22 to the amended plaint) to take over the Management of respondent-school, has been filed before the Lt. Governor and Chief Minister of Delhi but no response has been received.

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioners submits that to set at naught the reinstatement order of the staff of respondent-school, de-recognition of the school has been obtained in connivance with the respondent-Directorate of Education. It is submitted that without issuing any show cause notice to the respondent-school, it has been de-recognized which is contrary to the provisions of Delhi School Education Act & Rules, 1973. Attention of this Court is drawn to Rule 57 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 to submit that restoration of recognition ought to be granted to as it is the question of livelihood of teaching and non-teaching staff of the respondentschool. Thus, it is submitted that impugned de-recognition order needs to be quashed.

(3.) The opposition of this petition by learned counsel for respondents is on the ground that there are reckless and irresponsible averments made in this petition, not only against respondent-school but also against the Directorate of Education as well as Lt.Governor of Delhi and this scandalous petition needs to be outrightly dismissed. It is pointed out that the so-called Representation (Annexure P-22) is undated. It is also pointed out that there is no proof of submission of the Representation (Annexure P- 22).