Rajnikanth Upadhyaya & Ors. v. The Directorate of Education & Ors.

1. The following reliefs have been claimed in this writ petition:a. Issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order thereby quashing the letter dated 07th June 2011 whereby the respondent no.3 and 4 suspended the petitioner no.8 in illegal and whimsical manner, and b. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order thereby quashing the illegal actions of the respondent nos. 3 & 4 of demoting the petitioner no.1 and 2013:DHC:1660 c. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order thereby quashing the illegal actions of the respondent nos. 3 & 4 of initiating various proceedings and issuing various memos against the petitioners thereby arbitrarily singling them out and discriminating them, and d. Issue of any appropriate writ, direction or order thereby directing the respondent nos. 1 & 2 to form an independent inquiry committee to look into the allegations and charges levelled by the respondent nos. 3 & 4 against the petitioners; and e. Issue of any appropriate writ, direction or order thereby restraining the respondent no. 3 & 4 from initiating any false and frivolous action against the petitioners in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner, and f. Pass an order thereby awarding compensatory costs against the respondents and in favour of the petitioner herein for dragging the petitioner into the present litigation; and g. Such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case to meet the ends of justice.”

2. So far as Relief No.a of suspension of petitioner no.8 is concerned, counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4 school states that the petitioner no.8 was dismissed from service after following due process of law under the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 (for short the ‘Act’). The order is dated 25.01.2012. Once an order is passed against an employee/teacher removing such person from service the order is appealable to the Delhi School Tribunal as per Shashi Gaur Vs. NCT of Delhi, (2001) 10 SCC 445. Accordingly no further orders are required to be passed so far as prayer No.a is concerned, and so far as this relief is concerned, the writ petition will stand dismissed. Interim order dated 30.01.2012 stands vacated giving liberty to the petitioner to file such independent and appropriate proceedings to challenge the removal of petitioner no.8 in accordance with law.

3. So far as prayers (b) and (c) are concerned, they can be taken up with prayer(e). These three prayers are very wide and general, and ordinarily I would have dismissed this writ petition qua these reliefs, however, counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4 states that whatever action will be taken against the petitioners will be in accordance with the Act and Rules. Accordingly, no further orders are required to be passed so far as reliefs (b), (c) and (e) are concerned.

4. So far as prayer (d) is concerned, this prayer cannot be granted because every school is entitled to take action in accordance with law against any of its teacher or employee. Counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4 reiterates that whatever action will be taken against the petitioners, the same will be in accordance with the Act and Rules. Accordingly, no further order is required to be passed also as far as prayer (d) is concerned.

5. Counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4 states that petitioner no.1 has not been demoted in the sense that there is no reduction in the scale of pay or downward change of post/appointment of the petitioner No.1 and merely different set of duties of teaching have been assigned to petitioner no.1 without in any manner affecting the pay scale of petitioner no.1. This statement of the counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4 will bind the respondent nos. 3 and 4.

6. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed so far as prayer (a) is concerned, reserving liberty to petitioner no.8 to approach the Delhi School Tribunal in accordance with law. So far as the other reliefs are concerned, the same stands disposed of in terms of the statements made on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J APRIL 03, 2013 as