Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Judges

S. Ravindra Bhat

Acts

Section 24 of the Delhi School Education Act (hereafter called "the Act").

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution were filed seeking quashing of a show cause notice issued by the second respondent proposing to de-recognise the first petitioner school (Green Field Public School Society). The opinion records the show cause notice date as 28th March, 2005 in one place and refers elsewhere to an impugned show cause notice dated 20th March, 2005.

The first petitioner originally established a school in Naveen Shahdara and subsequently another in Dilshad Garden. Disputes arose concerning management and employees, including teachers' claims for non-payment of salaries. Several litigations followed; a learned Single Judge disposed of some matters and appeals were thereafter heard by a Division Bench.

On 10th February, 2004 the Division Bench disposed of the appeals by a common order directing, among other things, a fresh inspection of the schools within 15 days and formulation of a report within two months, consideration of back wages and deployment of teachers, and an interim arrangement for sharing certain teacher liabilities between the two schools until final orders by the Director of Education.

Pursuant to the Division Bench directions, the Directorate of Education carried out an inspection and an inspection report was forwarded to the petitioner on 27th May, 2004. Subsequent administrative actions included a show cause notice dated 24th July, 2004 (to which the petitioner replied on 9th August, 2004), another show cause notice on 29th September, 2004 which was challenged in writ proceedings, and an order of the learned Single Judge dated 13th October, 2004 directing the respondent No.2 to afford a reasonable opportunity and pass a fresh/speaking order specifying remaining deficiencies.

The Directorate issued an order dated 8th November, 2004 directing the managing committee to perform several specific acts within one month (these included settling staff claims with back wages, producing documentary proof of authority of certain office-bearers, providing documents regarding contractual teachers, consolidated accounts, and other records).

The second respondent issued a speaking order on 9th February, 2005 (which set out categories of employees entitled to certain reliefs). In light of those events, an impugned show cause notice (dated 20th March, 2005 in one part of the opinion and 28th March, 2005 in another) was issued calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the school ought not to be de-recognized.

The High Court examined compliance with the Division Bench directions, found the order dated 9th February, 2005 and the impugned show cause notice to be insufficient, set them aside, and issued directions requiring respondent No.2 to carry out a fresh, detailed exercise in respect of individual teachers' entitlements, deployment and back wages, to be completed within three months. The petition was disposed of in terms of those directions and the matter was listed for compliance and further proceedings.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the show cause notice issued by respondent No.2 proposing de-recognition of the first petitioner school should be quashed.
Whether the order dated 9th February, 2005 passed by respondent No.2 complied with the Division Bench directions (specifically, whether it constituted a speaking and comprehensive order addressing status, deployment and quantification of back wages for each teacher/employee).
What remedial steps and directions should be issued where the Directorate's actions following the Division Bench order were found to be incomplete or insufficient.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent's (or respondent No.2's counsel) submissions

The learned counsel for the respondent stated that the petitioner had not furnished all the documents in relation to various teachers.

Petitioner's submissions

Counsel for the petitioner contended that, as per the Division Bench's orders, a complete inspection envisaged inspection of both schools (Dilshad Garden and Naveen Shahdara) and implied that the inspection requirement had not been interpreted correctly if only one school was inspected.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis followed a sequential assessment of the Division Bench's order and subsequent administrative actions taken by respondent No.2:

The Division Bench had laid down specific, multi-part directions (inspection within 15 days and report within two months; consideration of back wages and present wages of teachers/staff; consideration of deployment; and passing appropriate orders in view of an interim arrangement between the two schools).
The record showed compliance with the inspection requirement as to the petitioner’s Dilshad Garden school; however, there was no material demonstrating that respondent No.2 had undertaken the specific exercise required by the Division Bench to determine, with particularity, the rights of individual teachers (status, deployment and amounts payable).
The court observed that the order dated 9th February, 2005 merely declared a class of employees who were entitled to certain benefits but failed to explain the rationale in a manner that satisfied the Division Bench's requirement for a speaking order that determined rights individually with particularity. The court noted that while the rationale "could well be there," it was not reflected in the material on record.
Given this absence of a detailed, individualized determination, the court concluded that respondent No.2 had not complied with the Division Bench directions and that it was incumbent on respondent No.2 to carry out a comprehensive exercise listing entitlements (back wages, status and deployment) for each teacher/employee affected by the 9th February, 2005 order.
The court addressed the parties' contentions in brief: respondent's counsel pointed to missing documents from the petitioner while petitioner's counsel emphasized that inspections should have included both schools. The court did not accept the sufficiency of respondent No.2's actions in light of the Division Bench directions.
On that basis, the court issued detailed directions requiring respondent No.2 to conduct a fresh exercise, hear individual teachers, consider all materials produced by teachers and respondents, and quantify liabilities (back wages) and deployment responsibilities. The court set timelines and appearance dates and ordered that records and materials be produced and exchanged as necessary.

Holding and Implications

The court's final decision and its immediate consequences were as follows:

Holding: The court set aside the order dated 9th February, 2005 and the impugned show cause notice (referred to in the opinion as dated 20th March, 2005 in one place and 28th March, 2005 in another). The petition was disposed of in terms of the directions issued by the court.

Implications (direct effect on the parties):

Respondent No.2 is directed to carry out a fresh and comprehensive exercise, within three months from the date of the opinion, identifying for each teacher listed in the 9th February, 2005 order the entitlement as to (a) back wages (quantified amounts payable), (b) status, and (c) deployment (including the managing committee's liabilities to absorb concerned teachers).
Respondent No.2 must hear individual teachers and consider all materials produced by them and by the respondents in the process.
The parties are directed to appear before respondent No.2 on 12th May, 2005 at 2:00 pm with records, and copies of materials relied upon must be supplied to respective parties as necessary in the presence of respondent No.2.
The petition was disposed of in terms of the court's directions and no costs were awarded. The matter was listed for compliance on 7th September, 2005.

The opinion does not discuss any broader legal implications or establish a new principle of law beyond the directions given in this case; the decision concerns the correctness and completeness of administrative compliance with court directions and the need for a speaking, individualized determination by respondent No.2.

Show full summary ...

Greenfields Public School v. Govt. Of Nct And Anr.

1. Issue notice. Ms. Geeta Luthra, learned counsel accepts notice for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. With consent, the petitions were heard finally.

2. The petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, directions have been sought for quashing a show cause notice dated 28th March, 2005 issued by the second respondent proposing to de-recognise the first petitioner school under Section 24 of the Delhi School Education Act (hereafter called

"the Act"

3. The case has a chequered history. The first petitioner, the Green Field Public School Society originally established one school in Naveen Shahdara. Subsequently, it established another school in Dilshad Garden. There were certain disputes with regard to the management, the society and school employees. Several litigations were initiated; they included claim of teachers about non-payment of salaries and other issues. These were disposed of by judgments of a learned Single Judge. The matters were eventually carried in appeal.

4. The Division Bench disposed off the appeals of parties on 10.2.2004 by common order. The relevant part of that order reads as follows:

"Viewed thus we deem it appropriate to dispose of these appeals by the following order:

1. Impugned writ court order directing taking over the school at Dilshad Garden by the Director of Education shall stand set aside. The status quo as on today in respect of running and management of this school and the deployment of teachers and staff shall be maintained. The Director of Education shall however take steps to conduct a fresh inspection of the schools within 15 days from receipt of this order after notice to and in presence of the parties concerned and formulate his report within two months thereafter and take appropriate follow up action in the on the basis of such report under law.

2. The Director of Education shall also consider and decide the issue of any back wages or present wages of the teachers/staff involved in the present litigation and also their claim of deployment in a particular school in the facts and circumstances of the case or any representation made to him in this regard.

3. It is noticed that management of Dilshad Garden School had executed an undertaking on which order dated 12th October, 1999 was passed for absorption of aggrieved teachers in that school. Later, however, an application was made by this school for clarification and the record shows that there was a suggested settlement of sorts at one stage between the Dilshad Garden School and Naveen Shahdara School in which both had agreed to share the liability by owning 11 teachers figuring in Schedule I by Naveen Shahdara School and 10 teachers enlisted in Schedule II by the Dilshad Garden School. This arrangement in our view could be acted upon as an interim arrangement from 1st March, 2004 till Director of Education passes appropriate orders in the matter in respect of the schools concerned and also regarding the determination of any claims of status and deployment in a particular school by teachers or staff involved in the present appeals. Both schools are therefore directed to act upon this interim arrangement till final orders are passed by Director of Education and this arrangement shall be subject to such orders.

4. At this stage, it is also pointed out that management of Naveen Shahdara school had made some representation to the Lt. Governor in respect of Rs.32,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Two Laths) paid by the school to the teachers. This representation had allegedly gone undecided till date. The management of this school shall be at liberty to make a fresh representation to Director of Education within one week from today on the subject matter and on this Director shall examine the matter and pass orders along with other order to be passed by him in the matter uninfluenced by my observations made in various orders passed by the court in the course of this litigation. Dasi."

5. The Directorate of Education carried out an inspection pursuant to the above orders; an inspection report was prepared on sometime in May and copy was forwarded to the petitioner on 27th May, 2004

6. After the inspection, a show cause notice was issued on 24th July, 2004 pointing out certain irregularities. The petitioner replied to this on 9th August, 2004 There was another show cause notice issued on 29th September, 2004 which was eventually challenged in writ proceedings being CWP 16599-600/2004 By an order dated 13th October, 2004, the learned Single Judge disposed off the petition directing the respondent No.2 to afford a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and pass a fresh/speaking order that was specifies deficiencies that are still persisted or remain to be rectified by the school. The petitioner was also granted 10 days to seek appropriate remedies in accordance with law.

7. The Directorate thereafter issued an order what is characterized as an order on the 8th November, 2004 The material portion of that order reads as follows:

"NOW, THEREFORE, the Managing Committee of the school through its Manager is directed to do the following within one month for the date of issue of this order:-

(1) Settle the claims with full back wages of the staff members of the Naveen Shahdara branch appointed riot to 1976 when this school was recognized by Directorate of Education and shifted to Vivek Vihar as a recognized school.

(2) Settle all claims regarding salary and allowances with full back wages of staff appointed by the management of the school at Vivek Vihar between 1976 and 17.11.1988, the date on which it was shifted to Dilshad Garden. During this period ire. 1976 to 17.11.88 if any staff member was transferred to Naveen Shahdara or to any other unrecognized branch, his/her claim too shall be settled by Dilshad Garden branch.

(3) Submit documentary proof regarding legal sanction and permission of the Society of Mrs. M. Barseley to work as Principal-cum-Manager and Sari D.P. Jain as Chairman of the Managing Committee of Greenfield's Public School, Dilshad Garden and Vivek Vihar Delhi.

(4) Provide supporting documents to contradict the observations made by the inspection team that 12 teachers were working on contractual basis.

(5) Submit proof in support of its contention that 09 accounts, which were maintained in the joint signatory of Mrs. M. Barseley and Shri V.K. Joshi, Admn.-cum-member of Managing Committee, have been merged into one.

(6) Submit documentary proof that the matter regarding land at Vivek Vihar is sub-juice in Court.

(7) Submit proof that the provisions of modified scheme of Management have been complied with.

(8) Submit documentary evidence in support of its claim that accounts of Nursery Wing are being maintained properly.

8. This order was replied to by the petitioner on 18th December, 2004 The second respondent then passed a speaking order on 9th February, 2005. That order, after narrating the directions of the case and the facts culminating in the inspection of the school set out the names of various teachers in relation to different proceedings. The concluding or operative portion of the order reads as follows:

"In view of above, the managing committee of Greenfield's Public School, Dilshad Garden, is hereby directed to settle all the claims regarding salary and allowances with full back wages of all the employees (including those retired or even expired) who were appointed (i) prior to 01.05.1976 at Greenfield Public School, Naveen Shahdara when this school was recognized by the Directorate of Education and shifted to Vivek Vihar, and (ii) between 01.05.1976 to 31.03.1989 at Greenfield's Public School, Vivek Vihar, when this school was shifted to Dilshad Garden womenfolk. Session 1989-90. The managing committee of Greenfield Public School, Dilshad Garden, is further directed to absorb the above litigants in their school, provided they submit proof of having worked in Greenfield's Public School either at Naveen Shahdara or Vivek Vihar during the period referred to above. However, the onus of submitting the documents to the managing committee or Greenfield's Public School, Dilshad Garden to prove that the above litigants have actually worked in any capacity in any branch of Greenfield Public School during the period referred to above, lies on the concerned litigants. Since the managing committee of the school has not given any proper appointment letter to come of its employees, it is clarified that any kind of proof in possession of the litigants would suffice the purpose."

9. The impugned show cause notice dated 20th March, 2005 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the school ought not to be de-recognized was issued in the light of the above facts.

10. An examination of the directions of the Division Bench make it clear that the following actions were to be taken by the Director of Education:

(i) Carry out an inspection of the school within 15 days from the date of the order and prepare a report within two months;

(ii) consider and decide the issue of back wages and present wages of the teachers/staff (para 2 of the order);

(iii) consider and decide the deployment of the teachers and staff in a particular school in the facts and circumstances of the case;

(iv) the Director was also, in the light of the observations in para 3 of the order, under an obligation to pass an appropriate order in the matter, (having regard to the existing interim arrangement about deployment of the teachers in the two schools) vis-a-vis determination of claim of status and deployment of teachers/staff in particular schools by the teachers.

11. The record discloses that the first direction as per the Division Bench order was to carry out inspection; it was complied with as far as the petitioner's school, namely, at Dilshad Garden is concerned. However, as far as the compliance with the other directions are concerned, either due to mis-conception or incomplete understanding, the respondent No.2 has not in my opinion acted in the correct perspective. The orders of the Division Bench were specific, in that, the relevant claims of all the teachers working in the school had to be dealt with in a specific manner. So also was the case of their status vis-a-vis deployment in one or the other school. There is no material on record showing that such an exercise was in fact performed or done. The order of 9th February, 2005 merely declares the class of employees who are entitled to certain benefits. The rationale for this declaration or determination is however not forthcoming. It could well be there. Having regard to the materials on record a speaking order, which determined the rights of the parties whose status is to be recognized individually as belonging to different class or classes has been required by the order of the Division Bench. It was therefore ncumbent upon the respondent No. to carry out this exercise with particularity.

12. Learned counsel for the respondent during the course of the submission stated that the petitioner had not furnished all the documents in relation to various teachers. The counsel for the petitioner on the other hand stated as per the orders of the Division Bench complete, inspection envisaged that inspection of the both schools had to be carried out.

13. The orders of the second respondent have not complied with the directions of this Court. The order dated 9.2.2005 merely recites certain facts, and directs settlement of claims by the petitioner. It was necessary for the said respondent to deal specifically with the issues of status, deployment and amounts payable, in respect of each teacher/employee.

14. Having regard to all these factors, the following directions are issued:

(i) The respondent No.2 shall carry out a fresh exercise in relation to all the teachers vested om the order dated 9th February, 2005 and pass a comprehensive order, listing of the entitlement with regard to back wages, status and on the issue of deployment of each individual. This exercise shall be carried out within a period of three months from today.

(ii) The respondent No.2 shall hear individual teacher and consider all the materials produced by them as well by the respondents.

(iii) The issue of deployment would imply the respective liabilities of the petitioner to absorb the concerned teachers. Similarly, the issue of back wages would imply quantification of amounts payable.

15. The parties are directed to appear before respondent No.2 pursuant to these directions on 12th May, 2005 at 2.00 pm. with records. Copies of the materials relied upon by the teachers or the school concerned shall be supplied to the respective parties, if necessary, in the presence of respondent No.2.

16. During the hearing, Mr. Pramod Gupta, Mr. R.S. Sewak, Advocates present for some teachers.

17. The order dated 9.2.2005 and the impugned notice are set aside. The petition is disposed off in terms of the above directions. No costs.

18. List on 7th September, 2005 for compliance.

Greenfields Public School v. Govt. Of Nct And Anr.

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent's (or respondent No.2's counsel) submissions

Petitioner's submissions

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Greenfields Public School v. Govt. Of Nct And Anr.

Comments