# PRINCIPAL AND ORS v. PRESIDING OFFICER AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1978] 2 S.C.R. 507
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1978-01-09
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1804 °of 1977
- **Bench:** S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, Jaswant Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/principal-and-ors-v-presiding-officer-and-ors-7409
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

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 Education 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 despite 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_ disappeared 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 necessary.
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 Educat,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" unless it is

## Text

-
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 Education 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 despite 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_ disappeared 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 necessary.
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 Educat,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" unless 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 clothe it with the status
of a recognis~d. school.
In the instant case, the school \Vas not a "recognised
private school" on the relevant date and. was therefore not amenable to the
proVIsions of this Act. It was not an '·existing school" within the meaning of
B S.2(j) of the Act.
f510 H. 511 A, E-G]
2. Prior approval of the Director of Education is required u/s 8(2) only
if the servicl.! of an employee of a recognised private scho0l is to be terminated.
As in the instant case, the school wa-s not a recognised private school,
the approval of the Director of Education was not at all necessary to mhke
the order of termination of service of respondent No. 2 valid and legal.
[512 A-Bl
C
3. For the applicability of S.8(3) of the Act, two conditiorn must co-exist
viz. (i) that the employee should be an employee of a recognised private school
and (ii) that he should be visited with either of the three major penalties of
dismissal removal or reduction in rank. Jn the instant case, as the school was
neither a recognised private school on the relevant date nor was the impugned
-Order one of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank but was an order simpli~
citer of' termination of service, the appeal filed before the Tribunal constituted
u/s ll of the Act was manifestly incompetent and the order passed thereon by
D the ·rribunal was clearly without jurisdiction.
[512 C-D]
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1804 °of 1977.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the
18th January, 1977 of the Delhi School Tribunal, Delhi in Appeal No.
22 of 1975.
·
G. D. Gupta, Uma Datta and A. K. Kalra for the Appellants.
Swatantar Kumar and Arvind Minocha for Respondent No. 2
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
.,,
JASWANT SINGH, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against
an order dated January 18, 1977 passed by the Delhi School Tribunru,
Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the · Tribnnal') in Appeal No. 22 of
1975 purporting to have been preferred nnder snb-section(3) of sec-
/
tion 8 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to
as 'the Act') by Kunj Behari Lal, respondent No. 2 herein.
G
It appears that respondent No. 2 who is an M. Com. but does not
possess a Trruning Degree or a recognised Diploma in Education oc
three years' experience of teaching intermediate or higher classes oc a
recognised training certificate was appointed as Commerce Teacher on
two years probation in the pay scale of Rs. 418-10-438-15-513-20613-25-788-32-820 in the N. C. Jindal Public School, Punjabi Bagh.
./
New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the School') vide Memorandum
dated July 26, 1972 to teach the subject of Commerce to 9th and 10th
H classes. The terms and conditions governing the appointment inter alia
provided that the services of respondent No. 2 were 'liable to be tenninated with one month's notice on either side or a month's salary in lieu
l
PRINCIPAL v. PRESIDING OFFICER (Jaswant Singh, !.)
509
of notlce without assigning any reason during the probation period and
three months thereafter' . Pursuant to the warning contained in the
letters dated November 2, 1972, December 24, 1973, and August 4,
1975 of the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'), to which the School is oaffiliated since ·
1971 that respondent No. 2 was not qualified to teach the subject of
Commerce to higher secondary classes as per the minimum qualifications laid down by the Board, the Manager of the school served
respondent No. 2 with three months' notice on August 8, 1975, informing him that his services would not be required by the School with
effect from November 8, 1975. On September 8, 1975, the Man11:ger
of the School gave another notice to respondent No. 2 enclosing therewith a cheque for Rs. 1300 /- (drawn on Syndicate Bank, Punjabi
Bagh, Delhi} by way of the latter's salary for two months i.e.
from September 8, 1975 to November 7, 1975 in lieu of the remaining)
period of two months of the aforesaid notice dated August 8, 1975 and
relieved him of his dutles with effect from the afternoon of that date.
Aggrieved by these notices, respondent No. 2 filed the aforesaid appeal
before the Tribunal asserting inter alia that after the expiry of the probationary period of two years, he was confirmed by the School auth_orities in the post of Commerce Teacher in July,
1974; that despite
sincere and hard work put in by him, his s~rvices were terminated on
the basis of false and baseless charges because of .the personal grudge/,
malice which the Principal of the School bore towards him; Th:it the
plea of the School authorities that he was not academically qualified
was incorrect; that the Manager and the Principal who were fully
cognizant of clause 18 of Chapter 4 of the Central Board of Secondary
Education Hand Book having issued the letter of appointment and
subsequently that of confirmation, were estopped from pleading that
he (respondent No. 2) was not qualified to teach the higher cla•ses:
that the said clause could at the most be construed to imply that he
was not qualified to teach higher classes but the same could not be
made a ground for terrniuating his services and that iifler completion
of three years of teaching experience in the School, the disqualification.
if any had disappeared. It was further pleaded by respondent No. 2
that his services could not be terminated without the prior approval of
the Director of Education as provided by sub-section (2) of section 8
of the Act and without following the provisions of the Act and the rules
made thereunder. On these pleas, respondent No. 2 so)lght annulment
of the aforesaid notices dated August 8, 1975 and September 8. 1975
and a declaration that he continued to be; in the service of the School.
The Manager and the Principal of the School contested the appeal contendin.g inter a!iti that since the School was neither an aided one nor
had been recognised by the appropriate authority, the Act and the rule,;
fram~d thereunder were not ~PPlicable to it and consequently the appeal
was mcompetent and the Tnbunal hll<i no jurisdiction to entertain the
.same; t~at the .appeal was even otherwise incompetent as the impugned
order ~td _not impose any of the nenalties of dismissal, removal or
redu~ho1;1 m ran~ on r~sPondent No. 2 but was an order simpliciter of
ter~1!nahon of. his services and the conditions necessary for the annlicah1Jitv of section 8(3). of the Act under which it purported to have
been filed were not sattSfied; and that in the circumstances of the case
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
510
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1978] 2 S.C.K..
the prior approval of the Director of Education for terminating the
service of respondent No. 2 was not at all necessary. . The Manager
and the Principal of the School further pleaded that although respondent
No. 2 was appointed on probation for two years, no letfer of confirmation was issued to him; that the services of respondent No. 2 were
tenni11ated as they were told _by means of the aforesaid letters by the
Board to which the School was affiliated since 1971 that the respondent
should be replaced by a qualified teacher because he did not possess tbe
prescribed qualification to teach the subject of Commerce; that respondent No. 2 was paid a sum of Rs. 1300/- vide cheque No. 454889
dated September 8, 1975 as his salary for two months from September
8, 1975 to November 7, 1975 in lieu of the remaining period of the
notice; and that they were obliged to dispense with the services of
respondent No. 2 as despite the opportunity afforded to him by continuing him in service on temporary basis to enable him to get himself
duly qualified, he did not care to do so. The allegations of ma/a {ides
made by respondent No. 2 were also denied by the Manager and the·
Principal of the School. It was further contended by them that since
the instant case was not governed by the Act and the rules framed
thereunder, the question of obtaining the prior approval of the Director
of Education did not arise.
On the appeal filed by respondent No. 2
being allowed by the Tribunal, the Principal and the Manager O!f the
School filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court challenging the
Tribunal's order which was dismissed as withdrawn on February 24,
1977. Thereupon they approached this Court for special leave to
appeal which was granted vide order dated August 25, 1977.
We have heard the learned counsel on both sides who have reiterated
the contentions raised by the parties before the Tribunal.
Three points viz. ( 1) whether the School was a recognised private
'school on the relevant date; (2) whether the service of respondent No. 2
could not be terminated without the prior approval of the Director of
Education and ( 3) whether the impugned order of termination of service
of respondent No. 2 was appealable to -the Tribunal arise for determination in this case.
We shall deal with these points seriatim'.
Re. Point No. 1 : For determination of this point, which is crucial
it is necessary to refer to section 2(t) of the Act which defines
a
"recognised school" as a school recognised by the appropriate authority.
The expression "appropriate authority" is defined in section 2 ( e) of the
Act as under :-
"2. ( e) 'appropriate authority' means-
(i) in the case of a school recognised or to be recognised
by an authority designated or sponsored by the Central
Government, that authority;
(ii) in the case of a school recognised or to be recognised
by the Delhi Admiμistration, the Administrator or any other
officer authorised by him in this behalf;
(iii) in the case of a school recognised or to be recognised by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, that Corporation;
\
_,__
PRINCIPAL v. PRESIDING OFFICER (Jaswant Singh, J.)
511
(iv) in the case of any other school, the Administrator or
any other officer authorised by him in this behalf."
From the above definitions, it is clear that no school can be treated
:as a 'recognised school' nnless it is recognised or acknowledged by the
"appropriate authority'.
In case of the School in question, it is the
Administrator or the officer authorised by him who could accord recognition to it A perusal of letters dated April 6, 1976, February 1, 1977
and June 6, 1977 of the Directorate of Educatioii, New Delhi (at pages
90, 95 and 162 of the record) makes it clear beyond any shadow o~
doubt that the School was not recognised in terms of the Act till the
end of April, 1977 and it was only with effect from May 1, 1977 i.e.
long after the relevant date viz. August 8, 1975 that the approval or
recognition was accorded to it vide Jetter No. F.22(15)Z-XI(B)-
1968/2003 dated June 6, 1977 of the Directorate of Education, Rajinder
Nagar, New Delhi.
This position has been admitted even by respondent No. 2 in para 4 of the Supplementary Affidavit filed by him before
this Court. Even according to para 2 of the said affidavit, the recognition of the School by the competent authority was not there on the
relevant date.
The observations of the Tribunal in regard to the point
under consideration appear to' be based on a misconception of the true
legal position. It seems to think that since the nam~ of the School
figured in the. list of the Higher Secondary and Middle Schools in the
Union Territory of De!bi for 1974-75 prepared by the Statistical Branch
·Of the Directorate of Education of the Delhi Administration, the School
must be treated as a 'recognised school'.
This is clearly a wrong
assumption.
The fact that the name of the School finds a mention in
the aforesaid list is not enough to clothe it with the status of a 'recognised school'. It appears to us that since the School was affiliated to
the Board, the Delhi Administration caused its name to be included in
the aforesaid list. The fact that the School is affiliated or attached to
the Board is also of no consequence and cannot justify the concluiiion
that the Sch_o?l _is a 'recognised ~chool'. There is a si~i~cant difference
between 'afl1liat10n' and 'recognition'.
Whereas 'affiliation', it may be
noted, is meant to prepare and present the students for public examination, 'recognition' of a private school is for other purposes mentioned
in the Act and it is only when the School ls
recognised bv the
'appropriate authority' tha~ it becomes amenable to other provisions of
the Act.
Again the fact that the School was in existence at the commencement of the Act cannot confer on it the status of a recoonised
school and make it subject to the provisions of the Act and the" rules
made thereunder.
To clotbe it with that status it is essential that it
should hav~ been a 'recognised private school' a; contemplated by the
~ct.
Not~m~ !ias, however, been brought to our notice to sho" that
it_ was an ex1.stmg school' as defined in section 2(j) of the Act. In
view of all this, we have no hesitation in holdino that the School was
not a 'recognised private school' on the relevant d:te and was therefore
not amenable to the provisions of the Act.
'
'
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
Re. !'oint No. 2 : Sub-section (2) of section 8 of the Act ordains
H
that sq]J3ect. to an:i: rule that may be made in this, behalf no employee
of a recogmsed pnvate school shall be dismissed, remov'ed or reduced
A
B
c
D
512
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1978] 2 S.C.R.
in rank nor shall his service be otherwise terminated. except with the
prtor approval of the Director of Edncation. From this, it clearly
follows that the prior approval of the Director of Education is required only if the service of an employee of a recognised private
school is to be terminated. As in the instant case, the School was
not a recognised private school, the approval of the Director of Edncation was not at all necessary to make the order of termination of
service of respondent, No. 2 valid and legal.
'
Re. Point No. 3 : Under sub-section (3) of section 8 of the Act it
is only an employee of a recognised private school against whom an
order of dismissal, removal or r~duction in rank is passed who is entitled to file an appeal against such order to the Tribunal constituted
under section 11 of the Act within three months from the date of
communication to him of the order. For the applicability of this provision of the Act, tw9 conditions must co-exist. These are ( 1) that
the employee should be an employee of a recognised private school
and (2) that he should be visited with either of the three major peiia1ties of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. . As the School was
neither a recognised private school on the relevant date nor was tbe
impugned order one of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank but
was an order simpliciter of termination of service. the aforesaid appeal
filed by respondent No. 2 to the Tribunal constituted under section 11 ·
of the Act was manifestly incompetent and the order passed therein
by the Tribunal was clearly without jurisdiction.
For the foregoing reasons, we allow the appeal and quash the order
E
of the Tribunal. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no
order as to costs.
S.R.
Appeal allowed.
,
,_
,,1··