G VALLIKUMARI Vs. ANDHRA EDUCATION SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against order dated 10.4.2002 passed by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court whereby it allowed the writ petition filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and declared Section 12 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (for short, 'the Act') ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution and in so far applicability of the exclusion clause contained therein is restricted to unaided minority institutions, that Section 8(2) of the Act is not applicable to minority institutions and set aside the direction given by Delhi School Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') for reinstatement of the appellant with all consequential benefits.

(2.) Respondent No. 1 is a registered society formed with the primary object of imparting education to the children belonging to Andhra community living in Delhi. Respondent No. 2 is a private linguistic minority school established by respondent No. 1 and is aided by the Government of Delhi to the extent of 95%. The appellant was appointed as Upper Division Clerk (UDC) by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 w.e.f. 25.1.1988. Her appointment was approved by the Director of Education, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Director'). In January, 1992, the appellant was granted permission by the management for doing Postgraduate Diploma in Human Resources Development Programme. After some time, the appellant applied for study leave for attending the training programme and also for preparing for the examination. She reported for duty after three days of the expiry of leave period, but the management of respondent No. 2 refused to accept her joining and initiated an inquiry against her on the charges of neglecting duties as UDC, availing leave without prior permission, absence from duty, misplacing the office records, failure to submit important office records/registers to the superiors and flouting the directions given by the management of the school. Shri Y.S. Rao, who was appointed as inquiry officer, submitted report dated 4.7.1995 with the findings that all the charges except charge No. 4 have been proved against the appellant. A copy of the inquiry report was supplied to the appellant along with notice dated 9.11.1995 proposing her removal from service. She filed reply dated 20.11.1995. After considering the same, the disciplinary committee recommended the appellant's removal from service. The Managing Committee accepted the same and sent letter dated 24.1.1996 to the Director seeking his approval in terms of Rule 120(2) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (for short, 'the Rules'). The latter declined to approve the proposal. This was conveyed to the management vide letter dated 4.11.1996. Thereupon, the Managing Committee informed the Directorate of Education that its request for approval of the decision to remove the appellant may be treated as withdrawn. As a follow up, the Chairman of the Managing Committee passed order dated 30.11.1996 removing the appellant from service.

(3.) The appeal filed by the appellant against her removal from service was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 24.7.2001 mainly on the ground of violation of Section 8(2) of the Act and Rule 120(2) of the Rules. The Tribunal referred to the judgments of this Court in Lily Kurian v. Sr. Lewina and Ors., (1979) 2 SCC 124, Frank Anthony Public School Employees' Association v. Union of India, (1986) 4 SCC 707 and Y. Theclamma v. Union of India (1987) 2 SCC 516, and held that the management of the school could not have removed the appellant from service without obtaining permission of the Director.