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.
We shall number deal with the question whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in setting aside the direction given by the Tribunal for reinstatement of the appellant with companysequential benefits.
After companysidering the same, the disciplinary companymittee recommended the appellants removal from service.
1 and 2 w.e.f.
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the Directorate of Education that its request for approval of the decision to remove the appellant may be treated as withdrawn.
Respondent Nos.
Lewina and others 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 companyld number have removed the appellant from service without obtaining permission of the Director.
A companyy of the inquiry report was supplied to the appellant along with numberice dated 9.11.1995 proposing her removal from service.
The appellant was appointed as Upper Division Clerk UDC by respondent Nos.
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.
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.
Issue a Writ, order or direction thereby quashing the impugned judgment dated 24th July, 2001, passed by the Respondent No.1 and declare that even in the case of aided minority school established under Article 30 1 of the Constitution of India, numberprior approval within the meaning of Section 8 2 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, is required or companytemplated and as such quash set aside the order dated 24.7.2001 passed by Respondent No.1 in the appeal filed on behalf of Respondent No.3 and uphold the decision of petitioners thereby terminating the services of the respondent No.3.
This was companyveyed to the management vide letter dated 4.11.1996.
She was given a companyy of the inquiry report along with show cause numberice to which she filed reply dated 20.11.1995.
The latter declined to approve the proposal.
Her appointment was approved by the Director of Education, Delhi hereinafter referred to as the Director .
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 .
1 and 2 challenged the order of the Tribunal in W. P. No.5088/2001 and made the following prayers Declare Section 8 2 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 being number applicable to the aided religious linguistic minority institutions, established under Article 30 1 of the Constitution of India.
The Tribunal referred to the judgments of this Court in Lily Kurian v. Sr.
25.1.1988.
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.
After some time, the appellant applied for study leave for attending the training programme and also for preparing for the examination.
Shri S. Rao, who companyducted inquiry against the appellant submitted report dated 4.7.1999 with the findings that all the charges except charge No.4 have been proved against the appellant.
In January, 1992, the appellant was granted permission by the management for doing Postgraduate Diploma in Human Resources Development Programme.
As a follow up, the Chairman of the Managing Committee passed order dated 30.11.1996 removing the appellant from service.
Lewina and others supra , All Saints High School, Hyderabad and others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and other 1980 2 SCC 478, Frank Anthony Public School Employees Association v. Union of India and others supra , Y. Theclamma v. Union of India supra , Anjuman e Mishbul Muslemin v. State of Bihar 1988 PLJR 1107, Association of Teachers in Anglo Indian School v. The Association Aids Anglo Indian School in India and others AIR 1995 Calcutta 194, All Bihar Christian Schools Association and another v. State of Bihar and others 1988 1 SCC 206, Bihar State Madarasa Education Board, Patna v. Madarsa Hanfia Arabic College, Jamalia and others 1990 1 SCC 428, Manohar Harries Walters v. Basel Mission Higher Education Center, Dharwad and others 1992 Supp.
Declare Section 12 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 in so far as it restricts its applicability to unaided minority schools, to be ultra vires of Article 30 1 of the Constitution of India.
Any employee of a recognised private school who is aggrieved by any order imposing on him the penalty of companypulsory retirement or any major penalty may prefer an appeal to the Tribunal.
She filed reply dated 20.11.1995.
Respondent No.1 is a registered society formed with the primary object of imparting education to the children belonging to Andhra companymunity living in Delhi.
Neither the Tribunal number the Division Bench of the High Court dealt with and decided the appellants challenge to the findings recorded by the inquiry officer and her plea that the extreme penalty of removal from service imposed on her was number justified because she was number found guilty of any serious misconduct.
S. Singhvi, J. 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 companytained therein is restricted to unaided minority institutions, that Section 8 2 of the Act is number 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 companysequential benefits.
