Delhi High Court - Orders
Gurvinder Singh Saini vs Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Committee And Ors on 22 November, 2021
Author: Yashwant Varma
Bench: Yashwant Varma
$~26(SB)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 13093/2021 & CM APPL. 41305/2021
GURVINDER SINGH SAINI ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Annirudh Sharma, Adv.
versus
DELHI SIKH GURDWARA COMMITTEE AND ORS
..... Respondents
Through Mr.Abinash K Mishra, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA
ORDER
% 22.11.2021 CM APPL. 41306/2021 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 13093/2021 & CM APPL. 41305/2021
1. This petition has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:
"a. Pass an appropriate Writ, order or direction thereby suspending the voting right of Respondent No. 3 for all matters before the Delhi Sikh Gurdwaras Management Committee (Respondent No. 1) for the violation of Regulation 14, Regulations for functioning of the Delhi Sikh Gurdwaras Management Committee; and; b. Pass an appropriate writ, order or direction thereby keeping in abeyance the voting privileges of Respondent No. 3 as a member of Respondent No. 1 till the pendency of the present Writ Petition; and; c. Pass an appropriate writ, order or direction thereby declaring the selection process adopted by the Respondent No. 2 for recruitment of teaching staff as illegal, arbitrary and unjust;"
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHAWNA Signing Date:24.11.2021 12:09:162. The petitioner here claims to be a Sikh and the President of the Aam Akali Dal. He also asserts to be working as the Assistant Director, Sports in the GHPS School. The reliefs are claimed in the backdrop of the allegation that the respondent No.3 by abusing his position and office as a member of the Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee (DSGMC) has interfered with a selection process in order to ensure the appointment of his daughter in the respondent No.2 institution. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid abuse of office and position by the respondent No.3 clearly warrants the grant of the reliefs as prayed. According to the petitioner, the appointment of the daughter of the respondent No.3 has been done in violation of the marking scheme as formulated by the Directorate of Education (DOE).
4. It was then submitted that the appointment is clearly violative of the provisions made in Regulation 14 (2) of the DSGMC Regulations which clearly injunct the appointment of a family member of the Committee in the institutions administered and aided by it. This according to learned counsel would clearly flow upon a purposive interpretation of that regulation.
5. Learned counsel has additionally placed reliance upon „Annexure P- 5‟ which is an office order issued by the DSGMC to contend that the rights of the Committee to nominate representatives to the governing body of schools which are run and aided by it clearly establishes its deep and pervasive control.
6. In view of the aforesaid, it was submitted that respondent No.3 is liable to be injuncted from exercising any of the privileges which stand conferred on elected members of the Committee.
7. The petition was opposed by Mr.Abinash Kr. Mishra, who submitted Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHAWNA Signing Date:24.11.2021 12:09:16 that based on identical allegations, the petitioner has independently initiated proceedings before the Minorities Commission and since that complaint is still being pursued, it would clearly not be open to the petitioner to prosecute the instant writ petition. The submission was that plural remedies cannot be pursued. Additionally it was pointed out that in respect of various other allegations as also the allegation of abuse of office, an election petition has also been preferred against respondent No.3 which is pending and that till such time as the issues raised are tried in that petition, the reliefs as prayed are not liable to be granted.
9. Mr. Mishra, lastly submits that the appointment of the daughter of the respondent No.3 has been duly approved by the competent authorities of the Directorate of Education and that in the absence of any challenge to the legality of her appointment, the prayers as made cannot be countenanced.
10. The Court, at the outset, notes that the entire case of the petitioner proceeds on the assumption that the illegality in the appointment of the daughter of respondent No.3 would be violative of the provisions of Regulation 14 (2) of the Regulations noted above. As is manifest from a reading of that Regulation, the prohibition against employment is in respect of appointments in "the establishment of the office" as also in the "Gurudwaras" established by the DSGMC. Learned counsel has been unable to demonstrate that the educational institutions which may be aided by the DSGMC are also controlled or governed by these Regulations. In any case and as this Court reads Regulation 14 (2), it is evident that it operates against appointments in the office as well as the Gurudwaras established by the Committee. The Court thus finds itself unable to interpret Regulations 14(2) as extending to institutions that may be aided by the Committee. The Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHAWNA Signing Date:24.11.2021 12:09:16 attention of the Court has not been drawn to any other provision in these regulations which may have either incorporated a similar restraint in respect of appointments to schools and educational institutions or one which may have extended the application of Regulation 14(2) to schools.
11. In any case and as was noted hereinabove and has been rightly contended on behalf of the respondents, there is no challenge to the appointment of the daughter of the respondent No.3. In the absence of any substantive challenge having been raised to her appointment or to the order of approval accorded thereto by the Directorate of Education, the Court finds no justification to consider the grant of reliefs as prayed.
12. On a more fundamental plane, it may be noted that learned counsel has been unable to demonstrate that the prayers as made and or the allegations as made would warrant this Court restraining the private respondent from exercising his rights as an elected member of the Committee. The Court‟s attention has not been drawn to any provision made under the Delhi Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1971 or the Rules and the Regulations framed thereunder pursuant to which the privileges of an elected member may be liable to be suspended or placed under restraint even before that member is removed in accordance with law.
13. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid reasons, this petition along with the pending application shall stand dismissed.
YASHWANT VARMA, J.
NOVEMBER 22, 2021 Ms/kk Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHAWNA Signing Date:24.11.2021 12:09:16