Delhi High Court Directs Reinstatement Of Private School Teachers, Says Approval From DoE Necessary For Accepting Alleged Resignations

In a relief to teachers of Rao Manohar Singh Memorial Sr. Secondary School, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising the Chief Justice and Justice Sanjeev Narula today upheld the order of a Single Bench and directed reinstatement in service of the respondent-teachers.

Notably, relying on Kathuria Public School v. Director of Education and Anr., the appellant, a private unaided school, had contended that it was not required to obtain approval from Director of Education for terminating respondents’ services. The court, however, did not agree.

It distinguished Kathuria Public School, observing that the case was concerned with Section 8(2) of Delhi School Education (DSE) Act, which provides for an employee’s dismissal without prior approval of the Director. In the present case, on the other hand, the respondents had statedly resigned and acceptance of resignation was expressly governed by Rule 114A of DSE Rules. Thus, approval of the Director was necessary but had not been obtained by the appellant.

The respondents, who were engaged as Trained-Graduate and Post-Graduate Teachers by the appellant, had initially approached the Delhi School Tribunal challenging the veracity of the letter vide which they were claimed to have collectively resigned, as well as their termination for being contrary to the DSE Act and Rules.

The Tribunal had directed reinstatement of the teachers. Aggrieved, the appellant had petitioned before a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, averring that the respondents were gainfully employed elsewhere and the vacancies arising after their resignation had been fulfilled.

The Single Judge re-affirmed the Tribunal’s order.

Before the Division Bench, the respondents’ case remained that the appellant had fabricated the resignation letter to expel them from service without following applicable laws and procedure.

The analysis of the Division Bench centred on two aspects i.e., legitimacy of the resignation letter and its purported acceptance by the appellant.

With regard to the first aspect, it was noted that the resignation letter was neither produced before the Single Judge nor before the Division Bench.

“The School’s failure to present the resignation letter potentially debilitates their claims and bolsters the Respondents’ objections to the legitimacy of suspected resignation letter. In absence of the original or even duplicate copies of said resignation letter, we do not find discern any error in the view taken by learned Single Judge in the impugned order”, the court said.

On the second facet, the appellant’s contention was that the respondents’ resignation was accepted in a meeting conducted on October 11, 2012. The court observed that the record of said meeting was not placed before the Tribunal.

Be that as it may, it perused the minutes of meeting of said proceedings, now produced before it, and remarked that the same did not qualify as an acceptance of respondents’ resignation. The resolution was said to lack specificity, which is of “paramount significance in matters of resignation”.

It was further observed that proceedings dated October 11, 2012 contravened the provisions of DSE Rules. Inasmuch as the Director of Education’s nominees did not attend the meeting, there was a defect in the quorum and the decision of acceptance of respondent’s resignation stood invalidated.

The court also noted that the appellant had initiated the process of appointment of substitute teachers prior to the professed date of acceptance of the respondents’ resignations.

So far as in its attempt to contest, the appellant had averred that respondents were gainfully employed elsewhere and relied on Deepshikha Saxena v. Management Committee of Shiksha Bharti Senior Secondary Public School and Anr, it was held that the decision was of no assist to the appellant, as it was a case where the teacher had obtained employment in another school while proceedings qua her termination were pending and concealed said fact. In the present case, the court said, there was no proof that the respondents had obtained alternative employment.

While upholding the impugned order and directing restatement of the respondents against existing vacancies, it concluded thus:

“As rightly noted by the Tribunal, the record of School’s meeting 10^th of October, 2012 does not signify that Respondents’ resignation letter 11^th has been accepted. It appears that the minutes of meeting dated October, 2012, presented only before the learned Single Judge, have been engineered by the School, only to overcome the Tribunal’s findings.”

The court further directed that in case no vacancies subsisted, the respondents shall be accommodated against the immediate next available slot of vacancies. With respect to back wages, the respondents were permitted to approach the appellant, which shall decide the matter via a speaking order.

Case Title: Mangement of Rao Mohar v. Sumit Tandon & Anr

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1079

Click Here To Read/Download Order