SAMARTH SHIKSHA SAMITI & ANR. versus BIR BAHADUR SINGH RATHOUR & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 1 S.C.R. 735 · Decided: 03-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-+ 
1 • 
"' 
~· 
., 
Ji. 
,, 
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 735 
SAMARTH SHIKSHA SAMIT! & ANR. 
v. 
BIR BAHAOUR SINGH RATHOUR & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 598 of 2009) 
FEBRUARY 3. 2009 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRLAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
• 
Conditions of service - An LDC employed by a Society 
(Samiti) and posted in one of its schools - Promoted as UDC 
by the Samiti - Salary paid by Samiti - Employee placed 
under suspension by Samiti - Suspension challenged, 
pleading that services of employee were governed by Delhi 
School Education Act, 1973 and Rules framed thereunder-
Held: Services of the employee were governed and would 
continue to be governed by rules of the Samiti and not by 
Delhi School Education Act/Rules though provisions of the 
Rules may have been adopted by Samiti for its employees -
Delhi School Education Act, 1973 - Delhi Education Rules, 
1973. 
Respondent no.1 was appointed as a Lower Division 
Clerk by Samarth Shiksha Samiti, appellant no.1, and 
posted in one of its schools, namely, appellant no.2 Later, 
he was promoted as Upper Division Clerk. On 16.7.2005 
he was transferred from the School to the office of the 
Samiti. On 21.9.2005, owing to an incident, an order of 
suspension was issued against him by appellant no.1. 
During the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings 
against respondent no.1, he filed a writ petition before the 
High Court challenging his transfer order dated 16.7.2005, 
the suspension order dated 21.9.2005, the charge.- Sheet 
dated 29.9.2005 and the letter dated 26.10.2005 initiating. 
departmental inquiry against him. The writ petition was 
735 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
l•w• 
736 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 
A dismissed by the single Judge. But the appeal of 
respondent no.1 was allowed by the Division Bench of 
the High Court holding that his services were governed 
by the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and the Rules 
framed thereunder and not by the rules and regulations 
B of the appellant Samiti. 
r-
t'~~
In the appeal filed by the Samiti, the questions for 
considerations before the Court were: (i) whether 
+ 
respondent no.1 was the employee of appellant no.1 
c 
Samiti, or the appellant no.2 School: (ii) whether services 
of respondent no.1 could be said to be governed by the 
• 
Delhi School Euducation Act, 1973 and the Rules framed 
thereunder: and (iii) whether the conditions of service of 
respondent no.1 stood altered on his being transferred 
D 
from appellant no.2 School to office of appellant no.1. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
'+- . ,_ 
HELD: 1.1 Respondent No.1 is an employee of the 
Samiti whose services were placed at the disposal of the 
E School, where he was functioning as a Lower Division 
Clerk and thereafter as Upper Division Clerk. There is no 
dispute that his appointment was made and salary was 
paid by the Samiti. There is also no dispute that he was 
promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk by the 
}.. 
F 
Samiti and not by the School. [Para 19] [743-G-H] 
1.2. Though respondent No.1 was appointed by the 
..... 
Samiti as an L.D.C. in the School in question following 
the procedure laid down in r.96 of the Delhi School 
Education Rules, 1973, his appointment was made by the 
G Samiti on the conditions set out in the Office 
Memorandum which leave no room for doubt that he was 
an employee of the Samiti and not of the School. 
Condition No.4 in the Office Memorandum, which allows 
the Samiti to transfer the respondent from one school to 
H 
SAMARTH SHIKSHA SAMITI & ANR. v. BIR BAHADUR 
737 
SINGH RATHOUR & ORS. 
another run by the Samiti or fo the Samiti itself, read with 
A 
Condition No.3, indicates that the service of respondent 
No.1 was under the Samiti and under its control. [Para 21] 
[7 45-B-C-E-F] 
2.1. Condition No.11 of the Office Memorandum only 
B 
indicates that during the period of service of respondent 
·~· 
No.1 he would have to obey all the rules as mentioned 
in Chapter 9 of the Delhi School Education Rules. 
Chapter 9 relates to the Code of conduct for teachers and 
other employees and was adopted by the Samiti to c 
govern the code of conduct of its employees as well. 
Except for indicating that respondent No.1 would have 
to obey the rules in question, Condition No.11 does not 
provide that the Delhi School Eduction Act/Rules would 
directly govern his services, Furthermore, condition 
D 
_ _.,. 
No.15 gives the Samiti the right to remove respondent 
No.1 from service according to law. Respondent No.1 
continu

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