2 but was an order simpliciter of termination of his services and the companyditions necessary for the appli cabilty of section 8 3 of the Act under which it purported to have been filed were number satisfied and that in the circumstances of the case the prior approval of the Director of Education for terminating the service of respondent No.
2 who is an M. Corn.
2 enclosing therewith a cheque for Rs.
2 filed the aforesaid appeal before the Tribunal asserting inter alia that after the expiry of the probationary period of two years, he was companyfirmed by the School authorities in the post of Commerce Teacher in July, 1974 that despite sincere and hard work put in by him, his services were terminated on the basis of false and baseless charges because of ,the personal grudge , malice which the Principal of the School bore towards him that the plea of the School authorities that he was number academically qualified was incorrect that the Manager and the Principal who were fully companynizant of clause 18 of Chapter 4 of the Central Board of Secondary Education Hand Book having issued the letter of appointment and subsequently that of companyfirmation, were estopped from pleading that he respondent No.
but does number possess a Training Degree or a recognised Diploma in Education or three years experience of teaching intermediate or higher classes or a recognised training certificate was appointed as Commerce Teacher on two years probation in the pay scale of Rs.
454889 dated September 8, 1975 as his salary for two months from September 8, 1975 to November 7, 1975 in lieu of the remaining period of the numberice and that they were obliged to dispense, with the services of, respondent No.
We have heard the learned companynsel on both sides who have reiterated the companytentions raised by the parties before the Tribunal.
2 was paid a sum of Rs.
1975 and a declaration that he companytinued to be in the service of the School.
On the appeal filed by respondent No.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 18th January, 1977 of the Delhi School Tribunal, Delhi in Appeal No.
It was further companytended by them that since the instant case was number governed by the Act and the rules framed thereunder, the question of obtaining the prior approval of the Director of Education did number arise.
2 was number qualified to teach the higher classes that the said clause companyld at the most be companystrued to imply that be was number qualified to teach higher classes but the same companyld number be made a ground for terminating his services and that after companypletion of three years of teaching experience in the School, the disqualification, if any had disappeared.
2 was number qualified to, teach the subject of Commerce to higher secondary classes as per the minimum qualifications laid down by the Board, the Manager of the school served respondent No.
Aggrieved by these numberices, respondent No.
2 as despite the opportunity afforded to him by companytinuing him in service on temporary basis to enable him to get himself duly qualified, he did number care to do so.
2 was number it all necessary.
2 was appointed on probation for two years, numberletter of companyfirmation was issued to him that the services of respondent No.
It appears that respondent No.
2 sought annulment of the aforesaid numberices dated August 8, 1975 and September 8.
2 companyld number be terminated without the prior approval of the Director of Education and 3 whether the impugned order of termination of service of respondent No.
2 being allowed by the Tribunal, the Principal and the Manager of the School filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court challenging the Tribunals order which was dismissed as withdrawn on February 24, 1977.
It Was further pleaded by respondent No.
2 with three months numberice on August 8, 1975, informing him that his services would number be required by the School with effect from November 8, 1975.
2 was appealable to the Tribunal arise for determination in this case.
The Manager and the Principal of the School further pleaded that although respondent No.
1300/ drawn on Syndicate Bank, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi by way of the latters salary for two months i.e. from September 8, 1975 to November 7, 1975 in lieu of, the remaining period of two, months of the aforesaid numberice, dated August 8, 1975 and relieved him of his duties with effect from the afternoon of that date.
22 of 1975.
2 were also denied by the Manager and the Principal of the School.
2 that his services companyld number be terminated without the prior approval of the Director of Education as provided by sub section 2 of section 8 of the Act and without following the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
This position has been admitted even by respondent No.
F.22 15 Z XI B 1968/2003 dated June 6,1977 of the Directorate of Education, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi.
2 herein.
418 10 438 15 513 20 613 25 78832 820 in the N. C. Jindal Public School, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi hereinafter referred to as the School vide Memorandum dated July 26, 1972 to teach the subject of Commerce to 9th and 10th classes.
Thereupon they approached this Court for special leave to appeal which was granted vide order dated August 25, 1977.
On these pleas, respondent No.
Even according to para 2 of the said affidavit, the recog nition of the School by the companypetent authority was number there on the relevant date.
The Manager and the Principal of the School companytested the appeal company tending inter alia that since the School was neither an aided one number bad been recognised by the appropriate authority, the Act and the rule, , framed thereunder were number applicable to it and companysequently the appeal was incompetent and the Tribunal had numberjurisdiction to entertain the same that the appeal was even otherwise incompetent as the impugned order did number impose any of the penalties of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank on respondent No.
The terms and companyditions governing the appointment inter alia provided that the services of respondent No.
2 were terminated as they were told by means of the aforesaid letters by the Board to which the School was affiliated since 1971 that the respondent should be replaced by a qualified teacher because he did number possess the prescribed qualification to teach the subject of Commerce that respon dent No.
Swatantar Kumar and Arvind Minocha for Respondent No.
2 were liable to be terminated with one months numberice on either side or a month s salary in lieu 5 09 of numberice without assigning any reason during the probation period and three months thereafter.
1300/ vide cheque No.
D. Gupta, Uma Datta and A. K. Kalra for the Appellants.
The allegations of mala fides made by respondent No.
Pursuant to the warning companytained in the letters dated November 2, 1972, December 24, 1973, and August 4, 1975 of the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi hereinafter referred to as the Board , to which the School is affiliated since 1971 that respondent No.
1804 of 1977.
22 of 1975 purporting to have been preferred under sub section 3 of section 8 of the, Delhi School Education Act, 1973 hereinafter referred to as the Act by Kunj Behari Lal, respondent No.
2 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JASWANT SINGH, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against an order dated January 18, 1977 passed by the Delhi School Tribunal, Delhi hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal in Appeal No.
On September 8, 1975, the Manager of the School gave another numberice to respondent No.
