JAIN SAMNOPASAK DENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises following questions namely: (1) Whether the provisions of Section 8(2) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the Act) would apply to the school run by a minority aided institution; (2) Whether getting of financial aid by itself is sufficient to cover the minority institution under the provisions of the Act; and finally (3) Whether the School run by the appellant can be called a minority school.

(2.) In order to answer the above questions, briefly stated the facts are that the respondent No. 2 who was working as PGT (English Teacher) was charge-sheeted on account of absenteeism, gross misbehaviour by creating riotous atmosphere, dereliction of duties, disobedience and insubordination. Before issuing charge- sheet, respondent No. 2 was placed under suspension vide order dated 30th March, 1991. The appellant school did not take prior approval of the Director of Education before suspending respondent No. 2. However, later on vide letter dated 4th April, 1991 ex-post facto approval of the Director of Education was sought of the suspension of respondent No.2. The Director of Education conveyed the sanction vide letter dated 5th April, 1991. Enquiry on the charges against respondent No. 2 was initiated. The respondent No. 2 initially participated in the enquiry but subsequently choose not to appear. Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 19th February, 1992 holding him guilty of all the charges. Disciplinary Authority of the school accepted the report. Pursuance thereto a show cause notice was issued to the respondent No. 2 to explain why his services be not terminated. When no reply was received from respondent No. 2, the Disciplinary Authority finding the charges grave and having been proved imposed the penalty of dismissal. The order of termination was served on respondent No. 2. The factum of termination of service of respondent No. 2 was communicated to the Director of Education on 9th March, 1992. No prior permission of the Director of Education was obtained before passing the order of dismissal.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved with the order of dismissal, respondent No. 2 filed an appeal before the Delhi School Tribunal (hereinafter called the Tribunal) under Section 8 of the Act. The same was dismissed on merits by the Tribunal on 19th September, 1995. Review was also dismissed on 26th October, 1995. Order of Tribunal was challenged by way of writ petition. The same was allowed vide the impugned order dated 9th November, 1998. The learned Single Judge while allowing the petition opined that prior approval of the Director of Education was a must before terminating the services of respondent No. 2. Since there was violation of Section 8(2) of the Act hence termination was bad. It has been further held that the appellant being a minority aided school is governed by the provisions of the Act, therefore, the provision of Section 8(2) of the Act are attracted in this case. While setting aside order of the Tribunal, the learned Single Judge remanded back the matter to the Tribunal to decide it on merits. It is this order of learned Single Judge which has been assailed by the appellant in this appeal.