Union of India & Ors. etc. etc. Vs. Lakshmi Chand Gupta & Ors. etc. etc.
EmailAppeal: Special Leave Petition Nos. 2822-23 of 1987.
AND 2723, 2726 and 3193 of 1987.
AND 2723, 2726 and 3193 of 1987.
Petitioner: Union of India & Ors. etc. etc.
Respondent: Lakshmi Chand Gupta & Ors. etc. etc.
Apeal: Special Leave Petition Nos. 2822-23 of 1987.
AND 2723, 2726 and 3193 of 1987.
AND 2723, 2726 and 3193 of 1987.
Judges: RANGANATH MISRA & M.M. DUTT,JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 16, 1987
Head Note:
DELHI SCHOOL EDUCATION ACT:
School management taken over by Delhi Administration in 1976 for five years – Delhi Administration remained in management beyond 1981 while cases were pending in courts – High Courts observation that the management of the school after June, 1981 amounted to nullity was set aside – which of the managing committees to take back management? – Dispute to be adjudicated by the same Division Bench of the High Court.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. These special leave application are directed against the appellate order passed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, relating to the management of a Local School. In the ultimate paragraph of the appellate judgment the High Court has indicated:
“Before parting with the case we would like to clarify that in case any difficulty is experienced by any party in implementing the judgment of this Court the parties including the Education Department shall be at liberty to move the Court in which the dispute is alleged to be pending between the two rival Managing Committees for direction/directions as to which of the managing committee is entitled to get back the management of the school and make appointment to the post of Vice Principal of the School. We also give liberty to the parties to move this Court in case any further directions become necessary.”
2. We have gathered from the submission advanced at the bar that a suit had been filed in the Civil Court pertaining to some facets of the same dispute but it has since been dismissed for default and an application for its restoration is now pending. Whether the suit would be restored or not in uncertain. In such circumstances, determination as to which of the managing committee should take back management of the School cannot be left to be adjudicated to that Court. We are of the view that other alternative given by the High Court should be worked out viz., the High Court has to exercise jurisdiction to find out which of managing committee is to take back management of the institution. We would accordingly suggest to the High Court that within two months from now or at any rate by the end of September, 1987, after hearing the parties, it shall finally decide as to which of the managing committee should be given back the management of the school. We hope that it will be possible for the same Division Bench which heard the matter to hear this aspect of the matter. For that purpose we have directed all the parties who have appeared before us to appear before Aggarwal J. (unless the same Bench is sitting) on 30th July, 1987, for taking directions from that Court.
3. A peculiar situation seems to have arisen in this case. Parties agree that the management of the School was taken over by the Government sometime in 1976 and under the Act Government could keep the management for a total period of five years, which means that by June, 1981, the management should have been restored. Conflicting orders were passed by different courts as to how the management should be carried on or the manner in which the same should be restored. In such a situation the Delhi Administration remained in management of the institution. It is unfortunate that High Court has taken the view that management after June 1981 in the hands of the Delhi Administration was a nullity. Taking the broad features appearing in this case we hold that the observation of the High Court that the management of the School after June, 1981, amounted to a nullity is set aside.
4. Next is the question relating to the Head Master and the Vice Principal. It appears that the Vice Principal was appointed by the Delhi Administration when it had control over the management. It is nobody’s case, nor is it the view of the High Court that Vice Principal has not been functioning, when an officer has functioned and drawn salary, to say that he would be deemed not to have been in employment would not be appropriate. We would accordingly hold that the Vice Principal has been in employment under orders of the management i.e. The Delhi Administration.
5. Similarly, the Head Master, as found by the High Court, is continuing in that post from 1978. Both the Vice Principal and the Head Master will continue to hold their respective offices and would function as such and draw emoluments attached to their offices until one of the managing committee on the basis of the orders of the High Court to be made is put back in management. It would be open to the managing committee to make appropriate orders in regard to the Vice Principal and in case the Vice Principal has an adverse order against him, it would be open to him to seek relief, if any, in accordance with law. We make no observation or direction for such a future eventuality.
6. Learned Solicitor General contended that while the law fixes the liability of the Delhi Administration to be 95 per cent of the expenses the High Court has added an additional liability of 5 per cent. This seems to have been done in the peculiar situation of the case. We hope and trust that this would not become a precedent. We, therefore, make no directions in this regard.
7. If there be any arrears of salary to be paid to the Vice Principal or the Head Master, the same would be disbursed in accordance with the rules without delay as stated by learned Solicitor General.
8. All the special leave petitions are disposed off.
1. These special leave application are directed against the appellate order passed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, relating to the management of a Local School. In the ultimate paragraph of the appellate judgment the High Court has indicated:
“Before parting with the case we would like to clarify that in case any difficulty is experienced by any party in implementing the judgment of this Court the parties including the Education Department shall be at liberty to move the Court in which the dispute is alleged to be pending between the two rival Managing Committees for direction/directions as to which of the managing committee is entitled to get back the management of the school and make appointment to the post of Vice Principal of the School. We also give liberty to the parties to move this Court in case any further directions become necessary.”
2. We have gathered from the submission advanced at the bar that a suit had been filed in the Civil Court pertaining to some facets of the same dispute but it has since been dismissed for default and an application for its restoration is now pending. Whether the suit would be restored or not in uncertain. In such circumstances, determination as to which of the managing committee should take back management of the School cannot be left to be adjudicated to that Court. We are of the view that other alternative given by the High Court should be worked out viz., the High Court has to exercise jurisdiction to find out which of managing committee is to take back management of the institution. We would accordingly suggest to the High Court that within two months from now or at any rate by the end of September, 1987, after hearing the parties, it shall finally decide as to which of the managing committee should be given back the management of the school. We hope that it will be possible for the same Division Bench which heard the matter to hear this aspect of the matter. For that purpose we have directed all the parties who have appeared before us to appear before Aggarwal J. (unless the same Bench is sitting) on 30th July, 1987, for taking directions from that Court.
3. A peculiar situation seems to have arisen in this case. Parties agree that the management of the School was taken over by the Government sometime in 1976 and under the Act Government could keep the management for a total period of five years, which means that by June, 1981, the management should have been restored. Conflicting orders were passed by different courts as to how the management should be carried on or the manner in which the same should be restored. In such a situation the Delhi Administration remained in management of the institution. It is unfortunate that High Court has taken the view that management after June 1981 in the hands of the Delhi Administration was a nullity. Taking the broad features appearing in this case we hold that the observation of the High Court that the management of the School after June, 1981, amounted to a nullity is set aside.
4. Next is the question relating to the Head Master and the Vice Principal. It appears that the Vice Principal was appointed by the Delhi Administration when it had control over the management. It is nobody’s case, nor is it the view of the High Court that Vice Principal has not been functioning, when an officer has functioned and drawn salary, to say that he would be deemed not to have been in employment would not be appropriate. We would accordingly hold that the Vice Principal has been in employment under orders of the management i.e. The Delhi Administration.
5. Similarly, the Head Master, as found by the High Court, is continuing in that post from 1978. Both the Vice Principal and the Head Master will continue to hold their respective offices and would function as such and draw emoluments attached to their offices until one of the managing committee on the basis of the orders of the High Court to be made is put back in management. It would be open to the managing committee to make appropriate orders in regard to the Vice Principal and in case the Vice Principal has an adverse order against him, it would be open to him to seek relief, if any, in accordance with law. We make no observation or direction for such a future eventuality.
6. Learned Solicitor General contended that while the law fixes the liability of the Delhi Administration to be 95 per cent of the expenses the High Court has added an additional liability of 5 per cent. This seems to have been done in the peculiar situation of the case. We hope and trust that this would not become a precedent. We, therefore, make no directions in this regard.
7. If there be any arrears of salary to be paid to the Vice Principal or the Head Master, the same would be disbursed in accordance with the rules without delay as stated by learned Solicitor General.
8. All the special leave petitions are disposed off.
