PRINCIPAL AND ORS. versus PRESIDING OFFICER AND ORS.

Citation: [1978] 2 S.C.R. 507 · Decided: 09-01-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
L 
507 
PRINCIPAL AND ORS. 
v. 
PRESIDING OFFICER AND ORS. 
January 9, 1978 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] 
B 
Delhi School Education Act, 1973-S.8(2) & (3)-Scopc of. 
Respondent No. 2 who is Ml M.Com., but <loes not poos.e5s 
a !rainTiig 
Degree or a rc..cognised Diploma in Education or three y~a!s' expenence ot 
teaching intermediate or higher classes or a recognised tra1n1ng cert1ficate, as 
required by clause 18 of Chapter 4 of the Central Board of Secondary Educa-
tion Hand Book, for teaching the subject of commerce to 9th a.nd _ l 0th classes, C 
was appointed as Commerce teacher on probation for two years in the N. C. 
Jindal Public School, New Delhi with further condition that his services were 
liable to be terminated with one month's notice on either side or a month's 
salary in lieu of notice without assigning 
any reason durin!? 
the pr~batt~n 
period, Mld thret: months' thereafter. 
Pursuant to the warnmg contained 1n 
the letters dated November 2, 1972, December 24, 1973 &nd August 4, 1975 
of the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi to v1hich the school 
is 'affiliated' since 1971, Respondent No. 2 who did not possess the minimum 
qualifications prescribed by the Board was served with three months' notice on D 
August 8, 1975 informing him that his services would not be required by the 
School w.e.f. November 8, 1975. 
On September 8, 1975 the management, 
vidc its another notice to Respondent No. 2 enclosing therewith a cheque for 
Rs. 1300/· by \vay of his sala.ry for two months from 8·9·1975 to 7·11·75 in 
lieu of the re1naining period of two months, relieved him of his duties with 
effect fri.;m the afternoon of that date. 
Aggrieved by these notices, Respon· 
dent No. 2 filed u/s 8(3) of the Delhi School Education Act 1973, an appeal 
(No. 22/75) before the Delhi School Tribunal Delhi as-.erting. inter alia, that E 
after the expiry of the probationary period of two years, he WaG confirmed by 
the school authorities in the post of commerce teacher in July 1974, that des-
pite sincere and hard work put in by him his services were terminated on the 
b~is . of false and baseless charges because of 
p~rsonal malice 
which the 
pnnc1pal of the school bore towards him; that the_ plea that he was not aca· 
demically qualified was incorrect, that the management which was fully cogn1· 
zant of the requirements of the rules, having issued the letter oi appointment 
and subsequently that of confirmation was estopped front pleading that he was 
not qualified to tea.ch the higher classes, that after completion of three years F 
of teaching experience in the school the disqualificaiion, if any 
having_ dis-
appeared the said clause could not be made a 
ground for 
terminating hts 
services, and thal his services could 
not be terminated 
without the prior 
approval of the Director of Education 
a.s 
provid~d by sub 
section (2) of 
Section 8 of the Act and without following the provisions of the Acr and the 
rules m:lde thereunder. 
The appellants contested the appeal contending 
inter 
a!ia, that since the school was neither an aided one nor had been recogflised 
by the appropriate a•uthority, the Act and the rules framed thereurtder"" were 
net app11cable to it, and consequently the 
appeal was 
iricompetent and the G 
Tribnn.al ~ad no jurisdiction !'O entertain the same; that the appeal was even 
otherwise incompetent as the impugned order was an order simpliciter of ter-
'?ination of his services .not sati~fying the conditions necessary for the applicil_· 
t1on o~ s.8 (3) and that. 1n the c1rcu~sta1;1-ces of the case the prior approval of 
the Dlfector of Education for 
term1nattng the :;ervices \Va'-> not at all neces-
sary. 
The Ma.nagement denied 
the 
other allegations 
made by respotfdtnt 
No. 2. 
The Tribunal allowed the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal by special leave the Court, 
. HELD:!. From sub-clauses (e) and (t) of s. 2 of the Delhi Schools Educa-
t,on Act, 1973, which define a "recognised school" and ari "appropriate authority" 
7 -114 6SCI/77 
H 
508 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1978) 2 S.C.R. 
A respectively, it is clear that no school can be treated as a "recognised school" un-
less it is recognised or acknowledged by the "appropriate authority". The name 
of the school find ;ng a place in the list of Higher 5econda1y and middle sChools 
prepared by the Directorate of Education, its affiliation to the Board or even 
its existence at the commencement of the Act can not 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.