Blog

 

The Delhi High Court Dismissed the appeal and impugned order and direct reinstatement of respondents against existing vacancies.

Title-Management of Rao Mohar VS Sumit Tandon & anr.

Decided on-6th Nov ,2023

+LPA 114/2018 & other connected matter

CORAM- HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE &     HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV NARULA

INTRODUCTION

The Respondents were engaged as trained Graduate and Post-Graduate Teachers with the Appellant-Rao Manohar Singh Memorial Sr. Secondary School but were later relieved from service on account of a composite resignation letter, supposedly signed by them and addressed to the school management. Challenging their termination, Respondents approached the Delhi school tribunal, whereby they were directed to be reinstated in service. In a writ petition filed by the school, learned single judge of this court reaffirmed the tribunal’s finding which has impelled the filing of present intra-court appeals.

FACTS

The Appeal has been filed by the Petitioner as before the Respondents were employed as teachers at school. As no appointment letters were ever issued but still they used to draw salary from the school. On 11th October 2012 when they reported for duty they were intimated that the school had accepted the resignation letter and are thus no longer authorized to enter the premises for which the disgruntled teachers filed a writ petition [w.p(c) 7931/2012] before single bench wherein on 20th February ,the petitioner filed before the tribunal specially constituted to adjudicate matters pertaining to dismissal of employees of a recognized private school, were the Respondent asserted that they had uncovered certain illegal activites being carried as disbursal of salaries and when they demanded their dues the school mistreated them thus in proceeding before the tribunal the respondents challenged the veracity of the resignation letter as well as termination for being contrary to Delhi school education act and rules 1973. The tribunal disposed of the matters on 15th September 2015, ruling in favour of the respondent as the letter allegedly issued by the Respondents does not qualify as a resignation as it fails to convey an intention to conclude the employer-employee relationship.as petitioner dissatisfied with the outcome the school filed writ petition assailing that the tribunals directions contained in order dated 15th September 2015. Reiterating their stand before the Tribunal, the school additionally argued that as the respondents are operating their personal coaching centres and are gainfully employed elsewhere, they can be adequately compensated in lieu of reinstatement, and their vacancies arising from Respondents resignations had already been filled. As the learned single judge vide a common judgement dated 16th January 2018 rejected schools’ contentions and learned single judge issued directives to the directorate of education to ensure that respondents are reinstated against the existing or next available vacancies arising in the school. So, petitioner filed appeal in this court in order of the tribunal and learned single judge are premised on the minutes of meeting held on 10th October 2012 not revealing any approval of respondents resignations by the school and also respondent Mr. Sumit Tandon and Mr. Brijesh Upadhayay were on probation at the time of cessation of their employment on 30th September 2012 .moreover there is no concept of deemed confirmation of a probationer and thus the said Respondents cannot assume the status of a permanent employee, who ought to be reinstated in service.so, in view of the misconduct and willful disobedience of the applicable code of conduct , respondent are not liable to be reinstated in service. The direction to accommodate the respondents against existing vacancies or the one that may arise in the future is unfounded in law. Whereas per the council for respondent argues that school has fabricated the respondents resignation letters to expel the respondents from service without following the procedure mandated by DSEAR and other applicable laws.

THE COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The hon’ble after a thorough and expensive evaluation of material produced by the parties, the tribunal observed that the schools assertion that a meeting was held on 11th October 2012 to approve the alleged resignation letter, bore no merit and in the view of foregoing discussion the court do not find any merit in the grounds urged by the school, which would call for our intervention on the aspect of relief granted by learned single judge, the school urged thar as the respondents have established private tuition centres, they must not be reinstated in service even the school has not furnished any proof of respondents alternative employment and they are offering private coaching to students, contested the relief awarded to them. Therefore the court impugned order and direct reinstatement of respondents against existing vacancies subsist, the respondents shall be accommodated against the immediate next available slot of vacancies. The DoE is Directed to oversee this process and ensure that the respondents are duly reinstated in service and with the above directions the present appeals are dismissed.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer

Written by- Prachee Novo Mukherjee

Click here to view the full judgement