SANGEETA v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

It would thus be seen that the teachers and other staff members working in a recognized school, irrespective of whether it is an aided or unaided school are entitled to scale of pay and allowances etc which are at least equal to the scales of pay and allowances etc paid to the teachers and staff members of the corresponding status in the government schools and failure to pay and allowances at par with those paid to the employees of the Government schools amounts to non-compliance with the conditions subject to which recognition of existing school can continue.

8. Section 4(1),(4) and (6) of Delhi School Education Act, 1973 reads as under: “(4) Recognition of schools- (1) The appropriate authority may application made to it in the prescribed form and in the prescribed manner, recognise any private school: Provided that no school shall be recognised unlessa) it has adequate funds to ensure its financial stability and 1 payment of salary and allowances to its employees; b) it has a duly approved scheme of managements required by section 5 c) it has suitable or adequate accommodation and sanitary facilities having regard, among other factors, to the number, age and sex of the pupils attending it; d) it provides for approved courses of study and efficient instruction e) it has teachers with prescribed qualifications; and f) it has the prescribed facilities for physical education, library service, laboratory work, workshop practice or co-curricular activities. xxx (4) Where the managing committee of a school obtains recognition by fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of material particulars, or where, after obtaining recognition, the school fails to continue to comply with any of the conditions specified in the proviso to sub-section (1),the authority granting the recognition may, after giving the managing committee of the school a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action, withdraw the recognition granted to such school under sub-section (1). (6) Every existing school shall be deemed to have been recognized under this section and shall be subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder: Provided that where any school does not satisfy any of the conditions specified in the proviso to sub-section (1), the prescribed authority may required the school to satisfy such conditions and such other conditions as may be prescribed, within a specified period and if any such conditions is not satisfied, recognition may be withdrawn from such school.

9. A conjoint reading of Section 10(1) read with sub section (1) and (4) and (6) of Delhi School Education Act, 1973 would show that if the managing committee of a private school fails to pay to its teachers and other staff members, the pay and allowances at par with those being paid to the teachers and other staff members of the government schools, the authority which granted recognition is competent to withdraw such recognition after serving a show cause notice proposing withdrawal of the recognition on the school management.

10. It is an admitted position that the teachers and other staff members post-revised of the pay scales pursuant to the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission have not been paid salaries and allowances and other benefits at par with those being paid to their counterparts in government schools and thereby the school management clearly contravened the provisions of section 10 read with section 4(1) and (4) of the Delhi School Education Act. The respondent no.1, therefore, was competent to withdraw recognition accorded to the said school. This is nobody’s case that no show cause notice is served upon the school management before withdrawing recognition. In any case, such a plea can be taken only by a school management and not by the parents of the children who were studying in the said school.

11. During the course of hearing before this Court, the Chairman of the Geeta Ashram Vidya Mandir, Sadar Bazar, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi who was present in the Court undertook to pay salaries to the teachers as per the pay scales recommended by the Sixth Pay Commission, but he was agreeable to pay such salaries and allowances only for the 10 months of the current academic sessions and not from the date the revised salaries and allowances etc were paid to the teachers and other employees in the government schools. Thus, the school management is not agreeable to comply with the provisions of Section 10 of Delhi School Education Act. Therefore, on merit, no exception can be taken to the impugned order dated 31.5.2013 passed by the Director of Education, Delhi.

12. During the Course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that instead of withdrawing recognition, the management of the school itself should be taken over by the Directorate of Education in terms of the provisions contained in Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and the Rules framed thereunder. In this regard, he referred to the order dated 10.5.2012 passed by this Court in W.P(C) No.1978/2011. This, however, was countered by the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 who submitted that it is not possible for them to acquire each and every school which defaults in payment of salaries and allowances etc to its employees. She further submitted that under Section 20 of the Delhi School Education Act, a discretion vests with the Administrator of Delhi to take over the schools in appropriate cases and, therefore, no direction for taking over the school can be passed. She also submitted that the government has already taken care of the interests of the students by accommodating them in the nearby government schools. As regards the teachers and other employees of the school, she submitted that since they are private employees, the government cannot be compelled to pay their salaries.

13. Though, section 20 of Delhi School Education Act confers a discretion upon the Administrator to take care of the management of a school which neglects to perform the duties imposed on it by Delhi School Education Act or Rules made thereunder, such taking over cannot initially exceed three years though it can be extended by further period not exceeding one year at a time. But, the total period for which the management is taken over cannot in any case exceed five years. Moreover, the aforesaid section does not apply to minorities school, though Geeta Ashram Vidya Mandir, Sadar Bazar, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi is not a minority school. The provisions of the Act are silent as to what happens if the school management does not come forward to resume the management of the school after the period for which it is taken over by the Administrator expires. However, that situation does not arise in the case before this Court since the Administrator has not at all taken over the management of the school even for the period permitted under the provisions of the Act. It would also be difficult to dispute that the failure to pay salaries and allowances in terms of Section 10 of Delhi School Education Act is a good ground to take over the management of the school, the same being a statutory duty casts upon the school management by section 10 of the Act. However, considering that there is no prayer in this writ petition for a direction to the administrator of Delhi to take over the management of the school in terms of Section 20 of Delhi School Education Act, and the issue of taking over of the school was addressed by this Court in W.P(C) No. 7978/2011 decided on 10.5.2012, no view with respect to the taking over of the management of the school needs to be taken in this writ petition. If any person is aggrieved on account of non-compliance of the order dated 10.5.2012 passed in W.P(C) No.7978/2011, the available remedy would be to file an appropriate application in the said writ petition.

14. As noted earlier, the issue involved in this writ petition is as to whether the order dated 31.5.2013 withdrawing recognition of the aforesaid school can be said to be illegal or unwarranted so as to justify interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Since no legal infirmity in the aforesaid decision has been made out by the petitioners and also considering that in view of the provisions contained in sub section (4) read with sub section (1) of Delhi School Education Act, the payment of salaries and other allowances, at par with the salaries and allowances being paid to government counterparts was a prerequisite condition for continuing recognition of the school, no fault can be found with the impugned order dated 31.5.2013, particularly, when this Court vide order dated 4.12.2012 had already directed that if for taking over charge of the school its derecognition is required, the respondent no.1 in the said writ petition would be at liberty to do the same as per law, rules and regulations.

15 The learned counsel for the petitioners referred to Smt. Harbhajan Kaur versus The Director of Education (NCT of Delhi and Anr. [W.P(C) No.1053/2011 decided on 5.4.2010] and Children’s Education Trust of India versus Union of India [W.P(C) No.6455/2000, decided on 8.8.2005] whereas the learned counsel for the respondents no.1 referred to T.P. Singh Saini and others versus Guru Harkishan Public School Fateh Nagar, New Delhi and others [W.P(C) No.971/2011 decided on 20.4.2011] and Vaishali International School Teachers Welfare Association versus All India Siddharth Int. Educational Society and others [132(2006) Delhi Law Times 237(DB)]. However, none of these decisions applies to the issue involved in this petition.

16. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

SEPTEMBER 25, 2013/rd V.K. JAIN, J.