0

Doctrine Of Forum Conveniens Is To Be Invoked To Determine The Most Appropriate Forum For Adjudication Of A Dispute: High Court Of Delhi

Uncategorized , , , ,

Title: Riddhima Singh V Central Board Of Secondary Education & Ors.

Citation: LPA 729/2023

Coram: Hon’ble The Chief Justice And Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Decided On: 01.11.2023

Introduction:

The present LPA arises out of judgement dated 12.09.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No. 8383/2023 whereby the Ld. Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the Appellant herein on grounds of forum non-conveniens without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter.

Facts:

Appellant was a student in Respondent School (the „Respondent School‟). However, on 02.04.2018, the Appellant‟s father received a message from the Respondent School that due to non-payment of fees for the academic year 2017-2018, the Appellant was debarred from attending the Respondent School. Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred W.P.(C) 6007/2019 (the „First Writ Petition‟) before this Court seeking issuance of directions against Respondent No. 1 („CBSE‟) to permit the Appellant to appear for Class X and Class XII examinations. During the pendency of the aforenoted writ proceedings, this Court, through interlocutory orders, directed the Respondent School to readmit the Appellant and directed the school to conduct Grade VII and Grade VIII examinations for the benefit of the Appellant. Both the examinations were conducted by the Respondent School and was cleared by the Appellant. It is pertinent to note that the Grade VIII examinations were delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Vide judgement dated 04.06.2021, the First Writ Petition was dismissed by the Ld. Single Judge on grounds that this Court was not the most appropriate forum to adjudicate the dispute. The Court considered that the Appellant was a resident of Uttar Pradesh and that the Respondent School was also located in Uttar Pradesh. As the grievances of the Appellant primarily pertained to the Respondent School, the Court held that the mere inclusion of CBSE as a respondent was not sufficient to enable this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Aggrieved the Appellant preferred a review petition against this judgement which was also dismissed with costs of INR 30,000 imposed on the Appellant.

Subsequent to the events of the First Writ Petition, the Appellant preferred the underlying writ petition seeking compensation from CBSE for alleged “intentional harassment, mental trauma of holding back the Petitioner in Class VII for two academic years in violation of RTE Act.” Without adjudicating on the merits of the matter, the Ld. Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of non-conveniens, noting that the Appellant has attempted to found territorial jurisdiction in Delhi merely because CBSE is headquartered in Delhi.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the Ld. Single Judge erred in not considering that Clause 18.3.2 of the CBSE Affiliation Bye-Laws explicitly states that the legal jurisdiction for suits filed against the CBSE shall be the Union Territory of Delhi.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

The principle emerging from Shristi Udaipur is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. In essence, the basis of the Appellant‟s claim for compensation is the loss of an academic year due a delay in examinations for Grade VIII. As the responsibility for conducting the examinations fell on the Respondent School, it is plain that the most vital part of the cause of action arose in Uttar Pradesh, where the Respondent School is located. Moreover, it must also be noted that the Appellant is a resident of Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, on a holistic examination of these circumstances, as the Appellant has failed to produce any material establishing that the grievance caused to her is directly attributable to the actions of the CBSE.

doctrine of forum conveniens is invoked to determine the most appropriate forum for adjudication of a dispute and this exercise is undertaken not only for the convenience of the parties but also in the interest of justice. Therefore, this Clause cannot be read in a matter that would permit all cases filed against the CBSE, regardless of the existence of a more appropriate forum, to be adjudicated in the Union Territory of Delhi; the existence of such a clause cannot exempt Courts from invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens especially in cases like the present where no direct actions of the CBSE have been impugned by the Appellant. So the court did not find any eason to interfere with the Impugned Judgement. Accordingly, the present LPA was 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- Sushant Kumar Sharma

Click here to view judgement

 

0

Madras High Court directs Army Public School to regularize Teacher with effect from the completion of one year of probationary period.

blog, Blog , , , ,

TITLE:  Mrs. Revathi Vs. CBSE Siksha Kendra and Ors.

Decided On: July 18, 2023.

Writ Petition Nos.1422 and 5596 of 2022 and W.M.P.Nos.1563 & 5684 of 2022 W.P.No.1422 of 2022.

CORAM:  Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Satish Kumar.

Introduction:

W.P.No.1422 of 2022 challenges the letter of the 4th respondent dated 12.11.2021 vide proceedings No.298/APS/Ch/AWES passed by the 4th respondent and seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents 4 and 5 to issue a confirmation order as enlisted in the Application submitted by the 5th respondent School in the Final Submission dated 21.05.2012 to the petitioner within a stipulated time; and W.P.No.5596 of 2022 challenges the relieving order issued by the 5th respondent in letter No.APSC/RO/2022/2 dated 28.02.2022 in respect of the petitioner and seeks a direction to the respondents 4 and 5 to issue a confirmation letter thereby regularizing his appointment as TGT (Mathematics) Teacher with effect from the completion of one year of probationary period i.e., from 03.04.2017 with all monetary benefits.

Facts:

The petitioner completed her B.Sc., (Chemistry) in 1990. She worked as a Science Teacher in Lord Krishna Matric School for Classes VI to VIII for the subjects of Physics, Chemistry, Botany and Zoology. Thereafter, she joined B.Ed., in Madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai and completed the course in 1992-93. After completion of her B.Ed., degree, she worked as Science Teacher in Mydeen Matric School, for classes VI to X. In the meantime, on 23.03.2002 she obtained a Diploma in School Administration through S.E.T. Madurai. She worked as a Chemistry Teacher at ARR Matric Higher Secondary School from 2004 to 2006 for IX and X standards. She took one year break. Then, she joined Velammal Matric Higher Secondary School, Surapet, Chennai as Chemistry Teacher for classes VI to IX and worked as such from 2007-2010. She also worked as NCC Cadet Teacher in that school since she held ‘C’ Certificate in the course. In the meantime, on the information which she got through the Right to Information Act, she came to know that her appointment which was made on 03.05.2011 got confirmed on 31.03.2012 and her second appointment which was made on 08.11.2018 got confirmed on 31.03.2012 and she became a permanent teaching staff and she could not be termed as a contractual staff. Suppressing the earlier two confirmation of appointments dated 31.03.2012 and 08.11.2019, the respondents 4 & 5 issued termination orders repeatedly. It is highly illegal and unlawful. She should be treated as permanent teaching staff w.e.f. 31.03.2012 and placed under permanent category.

Legal Analysis and Decision:

Much reliance was placed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 & 5 on the circular issued by the Army Welfare Education Society on 28.03.2023 in B/45785/Affiliation/AWES to state that State Government has no role whatsoever in the above said matter and an interpretation has been given by the Army Welfare Education Society itself to the effect that since the ownership of land allotted for Armed Forces Children Schools including the school buildings etc. continues with the Government and are located in defence land and the funds from which the buildings are constructed are provisioned by the QMG’s Branch, IHQ, Ministry of Defence (Army), from the budgetary sp allotted by respective service HQ by GOI, and the schools are managed by Local Military Authorities as per GOI provisions, the state Government have no role whatsoever in the matter. This court is of the view that such interpretation by themselves have no legs to stand. The respondents 4 & 5 cannot contend that they are not amenable to any State law when the law is operating the field and it applies to a school established in Tamil Nadu whether it receives grant from the government or not, or any other institution imparting education or training, established and administered or maintained by any person or body of persons, and recognized by the competent authority under this Act which would come within the ambit of private school Affiliation Bye-Laws 2018 refer to by the respondents 4 & 5 would make it very clear that every school managed by a society formed either by Central or State Government, Public Sector Undertakings, Statutory Bodies or established by a society registered under the Societies Registration Act has to obtain a “No Objection Certificate” from the appropriate State Government under Rule 2.3.5. In such view of the matter, this court is of the view that as qualifications of the writ petitioners are not in dispute, their selection was also not through back door method, and they were appointed on merits and the petitioner in W.P.No.1422 of 2022 has put in service for more than 11 years and as long as her qualification is not in dispute, she should be made as permanent and the respondents 3 to 5 cannot take advantage of the letter of appointment given to her for a fixed term of three years.

Conclusion:

The writ petitions are allowed. The respondents 4 & 5 are directed to issue a confirmation order as enlisted in the Application submitted by the 5th respondent School in the Financial Submission dated 21.05.2012 to
the petitioner in W.P.No.1422 of 2022 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The relieving order issued by the 5th respondent to the petitioner in W.P.No.5596 of 2022 is set aside and the respondents 4 & 5 are directed to issue a confirmation letter regularizing his appointment as TGT (Mathematics) Teacher with effect from the completion of one year of probationary period, i.e., from 03.04.2017 with continuity of service and 50% of back wages and all other attending benefits.

“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.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement