9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (1) TMI 180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ol Education Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by Kunj Behari Lal, respondent No. 2 herein. 2. It appears that respondent No. 2 who is an M. Com. but does not 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. 418-10-438-15-513-20-613-25-788-32-820 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. The terms and conditions governing the appointment inter alia provided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as confirmed 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 not academically qualified was incorrect; that the Manager and the Principal who were fully cognizant 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 confirmation, were estopped from pleading that he (respondent No. 2) was not qualified to teach the higher classes; that the said clause could at the mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase the prior approval of the Director of Education for terminating the service of respondent No. 2 was not at all necessary. The Manager and the Principal of the School further pleaded that although respondent No. 2 was appointed on probation for two years, no letter of confirmation was issued to him; 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 not possess the prescribed qualification to teach the subject of Commerce; that respondent No. 2 was paid a sum of Rs. 1300/- vide cheque No. 454889 dated September 8, 1975 as his salary for two months fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for determination in this case. We shall deal with these points seriatim. 5. Re. Point No. 1 : For determination of this point, which is crucial it is necessary to refer to Section 2(t) of the Act which defines a "recognised school" as a school recognised by the appropriate authority. The expression "appropriate authority" is defined in Section 2(e) of the Act as under :- 2. (e) 'appropriate authority' means- (i) in the case of a school recognised or to be recognised by an authority designated or sponsored by the Central Government, that authority; (ii) in the case of a school recognised or to be recognised by the Delhi Administration, the Administrator or any other officer authorised by him in this behalf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue legal position. It seems to think that since the name of the School figured in the list of the Higher Secondary and Middle Schools in the Union Territory of Delhi for 1974-75 prepared by the Statistical Branch of the Directorate of Education of the Delhi Administration, the School must be treated as a 'recognised school'. This is clearly a wrong assumption. The fact that the name of the School finds a mention in the aforesaid list is not enough to clothe it with the status of a 'recognised school'. It appears to us that since the School was affiliated to the Board, the Delhi Administration caused its name to be included in the aforesaid list. The fact that the School is affiliated or attached to the Board is also of no co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proval of the Director of Education. From this, it clearly follows that the prior approval of the Director of Education is required only if the service of an employee of a recognised private school is to be terminated. As in the instant case, the School was not a recognised private school, the approval of the Director of Education was not at all necessary to make the order of termination of service of respondent, No. 2 valid and legal. 8. Re. Point No. 3 : Under Sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Act it is only an employee of a recognised private school against whom an order of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank is passed who is entitled to file an appeal against such order to the Tribunal constituted under Section 11 of the Act with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
