Delhi High Court
Perfect Public Secondary School And ... vs The Administrator Of National Capital ... on 28 November, 1994
Equivalent citations: 59(1995)DLT482
Author: D.P. Wadhwa
Bench: D.P. Wadhwa, Cyriac Joseph
JUDGMENT D.P. Wadhwa, J.
(1) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners seek to have issued an appropriate order or direction setting aside the order dated 10 June, 1994 passed by the Lt. Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi under Section 20 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act') by which order the Lt. Governor was pleased to take over the management of the Preet Public Secondary School, for a period of three years with immediate effect. The petitioners also seek to challenge the provisions of Section 20 of the Act as being ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution being violative of Articles 14,16, 19, 31 and 300-Aofthe Constitution. Section 20 is as under:- 20. Taking over the management of schools, (1) Whenever the Administrator is satisfied that the managing committee or manager of any school, whether recognised or not, has neglected to perform any of the duties imposed on it by or under this Act or any rule made there under and that it is expedient in the interest of school education to take over the management of school he may, after giving the managing committee or the manager of such school, a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action, take over the management of such school for a limited period not exceeding three years. Provided that where the management of a school has been taken over for a period of three years of or less, the Administrator may if he is of opinion that in order to secure proper management of the school it is expedient, that such management should continue to be in force after the expiry of the said limited period, he may, from time to time, issue' directions for the continuance of such management for such period not exceeding one year at a time as he may think fit so, however, that the total period for which such management is taken over shall not, in any case, exceed five years. (2) Whenever the management of any school is taken over under Sub-section (1), every person in-charge of the management of such school immediately before, its management is taken over, shall deliver possession of the school property to the Administrator or any officer authorised by him in this behalf. (3) After taking over the management of any school under this section, the Administrator may arrange to manage the school through the Director or any other person authorised by the Director in this behalf (hereinafter referred to as the "authorised officer"). (4) Where the management of any school has been taken over under Sub-section (1), the managing committee or manager of such school may, within three months from the date of taking over, appeal to the Administrator, who may after considering the representation made by the managing committee or the manager, pass such orders, including an order for the restoration of the management or for the reduction of the period during which the management of such school shall remain vested in the Administrator, as he may deem fit. (5) Where the management of a school had been taken over under this section, the Administrator shall pay such rent as may be payable for the building of the school to the person entitled to receive it as was being paid by the managing committee or the manager immediately before the management of such school was taken over. (6) During such period as any school remains under the management of the authorised officer- (a) the service conditions, as approved by the Administrator, of the employees of the school who were in employment immediately before the date on which the management was taken over, shall not be varied to their disadvantage; (b) all educational facilities which the school had been affording immediately before such management was taken over, shall continue to be afforded; (c) the School Fund, the Pupils' Fund and the Management Fund and any other existing fund shall continue to be available to the authorised officer for being spent for the purposes of the school; and (d) no resolution passed at any meeting of the managing committee of such school shall be given effect to unless approved by the Administrator."
(2) During course of detailed arguments nothing much has been said as to how this section is unconstitutional. We, however, feel provisions of Section 20 go with the scheme of the Act which provides for better organisation and development of school education in the Union Territory of Delhi and for other matters connected therewith or incidental thereto under Section 3 of the Act, Lt. Governor may regulate education in all the schools in Delhi in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made there under. If the school fails to be run in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules, then the management of the school has to be taken over in the interest of school education, the students and the teachers. We find Section 20 is a salutary provision. It does not provide for taking over the management of the school for all times to come. Initially the management of the school can be taken over for a limited period not exceeding three years. It could be less than three years. In case the Administrator (Lt. Governor) is of the opinion that in order to secure proper management of the school it is expedient that such management should continue to be in force after the expiry of the period of three years or less, as the case may be, he may from time to time issue directions for continuance of such management under him for such period not exceeding one year at a time, total period for such management not exceeding five years in any case. Even after the management of the school has been taken over, the Administrator can still review his decision on a representation made to him as provided under Sub-section (4) of Section 20. The management of the school can be taken over only after giving the managing committee or the manager of the School a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action. No straight jacket formula can be laid as to what would be 'reasonable opportunity' which can apply in every case where a school is proposed to be taken over. As to what would be the reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action, would depend upon the facts of each case. It, however, does not contemplate holding of proceedings like a Civil Court. It contemplates that notice be informed of the allegations; what case he has to meet; what prima facie finding, if any, has been arrived at by the authority for the proposed action; and what notice has to say in answer thereto before a final order is made, or actions taken. The expression "reasonable opportunity of showing cause" does not invariably include the right of oral hearing. Moreover, there is a difference between the expressions "reasonable opportunity of being heard" and "reasonable opportunity of showing cause". It is the latter expression which is used in Sub-section (1) of Section 20. Even right of cross-examination cannot always be said to part of right of natural justice in case of oral hearing. If after the expiry of initial period for which management is taken over, the Administrator (Lt. Governor) still thinks it necessary that management should be in his hand, he has to record reasons and issue directions for continuance of the management, but within overall period of Five years. As noted above, the right to take over the management of the school for a certain period is in consonance with the objects of the Act and the Rules. If the management and the manager step out of line and neglect to perform their duties imposed upon them under the Act and the Rules at the cost of school education, there would appear to be no other provision under which school education can be put back on its rails. There are in built safeguards under Section 20 and the management of the school cannot be taken for all times to come. We, therefore, repel the argument that Section 20 is in any way unconstitutional.
(3) The impugned order has been passed after giving show-cause notice to the petitioners. The Lt. Governor after considering the relevant material came to the conclusion that, (1) management of the school had defrauded the teachers by payment to them of less salary while showing full in the records thereby contravening provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act; (2) the management terminated the services of Smt. Sadhna Sharma, Head Mistress, in contravention of the provisions of Rule 105 of the Delhi Education Rules, 1973 (for short 'the Rules') and Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Act; (3) there was no properly constituted managing committee in terms of Rule59(1)(b) [i to vi] of the Rules, and that the school was not being run in accordance with the Act and the Rules, and that the managing committee failed in its duty by not allowing the school to function normally, thus, adverse affecting the interests of the students; (4) the school was closed by the school authorities w.e.f. 21 September, 1993 to 25 September, 1993 by declaring holidays thereby contravening the provisions of Rule 32 of the Rules; and (5) as per report of the Deputy Education Officer there was great indiscipline and the school was not functioning properly; there was complete lawlessness in the school and everybody was roaming here and there and teachers were not allowed to function and perform their duties, and further though the school authorities appointed daily wage teachers but substantially they could not handle and maintain the discipline and that the same was unwarranted as regular teachers were available, and that in fact the whole situation had been created by the authorities. The Lt. Governor also found that the manager of the school had been interfering with day-to-day administrative and academic work of the school and thereby acting contrary to the provisions of Rule 59(m) of the Rules and that no records, documents and related materials had been produced for inspection of the panel officers as required in pursuance of Rule 59(xix) read with Rule 184 of the Rules, and that it became difficult for panel of officers to otherwise verify the fees and other charges charged from the students and whether there was proper utilisation of funds in accordance with Sub-section (4) of Section 18 of the Act. The Lt. Governor decided to take over the management of the school under Section 20 only after issuing a show cause notice to the petitioners and considering the explanation submitted by them. There is, therefore, no procedural irregularity in the matter.
(4) Mr. Swatantar Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, contended that before invoking Section 20, the Lt. Governor ought to have taken action under Section 24. Section 24 of the Act provides for inspection of the school and it is as under:- 24. Inspection of schools (1) Every recognised school shall be inspected at least once in each financial year in such manner as may be prescribed. (2) The Director may also arrange special inspection of any school on such aspects of its working as may, from time to time, be considered necessary by him. (3) The Director may give directions to the manager requiring the manager to rectify any defect or deficiency found at the time of inspection or otherwise in the working of the school. (4) If the manager fails to comply with any direction given under Sub-section (3), the Director may, after considering the explanation or report, if any, given or made by the manager, take such action as he may think fit, including- (a) stoppage of aid, (b) withdrawal of recognition, or (c) except in the case of a minority school, taking over of the school under Section 20." It will be seen that if there is a failure on the part of the manager to comply with the directions issued by the Director of Education, the Director can take such action as he may think fit which would include even taking over of the school under Section 20, except when it is a minority school. Action under Section 20 by the Administrator (Lt. Governor) is not dependent upon Sub-section (4) of Section 24. In other words, action under Section 20 need not necessarily be preceded by action under section 24. Under Section 20, the Administrator has to see if the managing committee or the manager of the school has neglected to perform any of the duties imposed upon it/him under the Act or the Rules made there under; and further he has to arrive at his satisfaction if the management of the school was to be taken over or not. That there is default on the part of the managing committee or the manager, cannot necessarily be based solely on the basis of the inspection report as contemplated by Section 24 of the Act. Inaction can be on the part of the managing committee or the manager. Information can reach the Administrator from any source, one of that being under Section 24 as well.
(5) It was further submitted by Mr. Swatantar Kumar that the impugned action of the Administrator was violative of Articles 14 and 19(1) of the Constitution, and that principles of natural justice had been violated inasmuch as the petitioners were not furnished with the documents and no personal hearing was granted to them and further that even if every allegations in the impugned order were assumed to be correct, the ingredients of Section 20 had not been fulfillled. Nothing has been said as to how Articles 14 and 19(1) of the Constitution have been violated in the present case, and no argument was advanced on that basis. We arealsounabletoappreciatehowArticle 14 and Article 19(1) of the Constitution could be said to have been violated. Any argument based on these submissions is rejected.
(6) Before we consider the arguments that rules of naturai justice have been violated or that ingredients of Section 20 did not exist for the Administrator to take action there under, we may well refer to earlier litigations pertaining to the school. We may also note that in this very writ petition applications were filed by 16 teachers and 3 staff members of the school (C.M. No. 6323/94) for being imp leaded as respondents, and by the parents of the students studying in the school (C.M. 6525/94), and by Mrs. Sadhna Sharma (C.M. 6530/94) claiming to be Principal/Head Mistress of the School for intervention and/or for being imp leaded as a respondent in the petition. Replies to these applications have also been filed by the petitioners. We did not pass any formal order on these, applications but allowed the Counsel for the applicants to address us as well.
(7) Mrs. Sadhna Sharma filed a Writ Petition (CWP No. 4723/93) on 7 October, 1993 against the Delhi Administration, the school, the society and its Chairman Mr. K.K.Mutneja challenging the communication dated 19 September, 1993 sent by the manager of the school whereby she was informed that her services as Head Mistress (on probation) were terminated with immediate effect by the order of the managing committee of the school. Sadhna Sharma sought a mandamus also that she be treated as Principal of the school on regular basis. She also challenged the letter dated 24 July, 1993 of the Chairman of the society whereby period of her probation was stated to have been illegally extended. The Court issued notice to the respondents as to why rule nisi be not issued and at the same time stayed the operation of both the cornmunications. This petition was disposed of on 4 November, 1993. The Court said that the main ground on which Sadhna Sharma had challenged the order of her termination was that the approval of the Director of Education as required under Rule 105(1) of the Rules had not been obtained, and that the school had stated that according to its records permission was asked for extension of probation aswell as for termination of services of SadhnaSharma. The Court noted that the Director of Education had stated that no such approval was sought by the school management either for termination of services of Sadhna Sharma or for extension of her probation. In this view of the matter, the society running the school and the Chairman withdrew the order of termination "with liberty to take appropriate action according to law."
(8) In the petition, Sadhna Sharma made serious allegations against the school, the society and the manager that the petitioner, teachers and the staff had been exploited by the manager and the managing committee which the manager controlled and that no one was being paid full salary as per rules and the teachers and the staff were forced to sign on their having received full amounts when they were in fact being paid meager salaries in cash. It was stated that the modus operandi was that teachers whose names appeared on the record of the Central Board of Secondary Education were shown to be paid salaries by crediting the same in their bank accounts maintained in the Corporation Bank having its counter in the school premises itself. The cheque books and passbooks were kept in the custody of the Manager and on the date of the disbursement of the salary the teachers were asked to sign on blank cheques and these cheques were thereafter filled inlater on either by the manager or by one Shri R.S. Tomar or Mr. P.D. Arya, Treasurer, of the managing committee, and thereafter the cheques were encashed. Petitioner said that the cheques which were encashed were of the exact amount of the actual salary of the employees concerned which ranged from Rs. 2,800.00 to Rs.3,800.00 or so, and after withdrawal of such amounts the teachers were paid amounts ranging from Rs. 1,200.00 to Rs.1,400.00 incash. Petitioner said that she was paid Rs. 1,300.00 against her actual salary of Rs. 4,500.00 .Asetofchequessofilledinandencashedbythemanager were filed along with the petition. Photo copies of as many as 27 cheques were filed along with the petition. These cheques though drawn by the teachers appear to have been filled in one hand and are drawn to self. Petitioners also complained about various other malpractices indulged in by the Manager or at his behest.
(9) Civil Writ Petition No. 4722/93 was also filed on 7 October, 1993 by as many as 21 teachers/employees of the school and also by parents-teachers association of the school and Mr. Yogesh Kumar Asthana, a member of the P.T.A., of the school. The respondents were: (1) the Delhi Administration; (2) Director of Education; (3) Lt. Governor of Delhi; (4) Regional Provident Fund Commissioner; (5) Central Bureau of Investigation; (6) Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Education; (7) the Society; (8) the School; and (9) the Chairman of the Society. The petitioner prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take over the management of the school and to appoint Administrator to run it and also sought mandamus for making enquiries regarding misappropriation of salaries, provident fund, gratuity, medical benefits, leave travel allowance, family pension benefits and all other such benefits by the society, the school and the Chairman, and then payment of all the arrears of the aforesaid amount to the petitioners 1 to 21. With the petition the petitioners filed their representations to the Director of Education, set of cheques encashed by the Chairman of the society, the complaint made to the Provident Fund Commissioner, the Police and various other documents. The representations made are dated 20 July, 1993, 25 August, 1993, 14 September, 1993, 28 September, 1993, 29 September, 1993 to the Director of Education and the Lt. Governor of Delhi. The documents filed with the petition also contained copy of letter dated 5 June, 1993 from the school to a teacher for collection of salary. This letter is in a proforma and may be set out as under:- "Mrs. Achia Sikka, Madam, Salary for May, 1993. Please collect your May salary, 1993 immediately on receipt of this letter from the office. sd/- Office in charge/Manager." The other documents were the complaint dated 18 September, 1993 to the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, copies of complaints dated 14 September, 1993, 17 September, 1993 and 29 September, 1993 addressed to police authorities, and that dated 29 September, 1993 addressed to the C.B.I. (20) This petition was also disposed of by order dated 4 November, 1993. The Court noticed that the main grievance of the petitioner was against the school management and it was prayed that an Administrator beappointed to run the school, and orders were also sought regarding misappropriation of salaries, provident fund, etc. The Court further noticed that the Director of Education was also seized of the matter and a show cause notice had been issued to the management of the school and that the Director of Education would be taking action as expeditiously as possible. The Court said that in these circumstances it was not inclined to interfere at that stage and that it was also noticed that the Director had also taken into account the complaints made by some of the petitioners and was agreeable to consider any representation made by the teachers. At that stage, the Counsel for the school management agreed that without prejudice the petitioners would beallowed to join the school from 8 November, 1993and would bepaid their salaries along with the arrears as per rules. It was further stated that teachers would be at liberty to deposit their pay orders in their accounts. After the petition wasdisposedof,anapplication was filed against by the petitioners complaining that they were not being allowed to join. On this the Court appointed a Local Commissioner giving certain directions. This was on 18 November, 1993. The Local Commissioner submitted his report on 13 November, 1993. He said when he reached the school at 8 a.m. he found office locked. It was thereafter that the staff started coming. Bank drafts towards salary were handed over to some of the teachers each of whom protested in writing that she had not been paid salary up to September, 1993 as per orders of the Court. 18 teachers, who were petitioners, submitted their joining reports in the presence of the Local Commissioner. The Local Commissioner reported that after completing the proceedings no teacher was given any duty and on asking of the petitioners, the Manager of the School, Mr. Bahal, told the Local Commissioner that he would conduct ameeting first and then he would give the time-table because the classes had already been started. The Local Commissioner reported that in his presence that no one was given any duty and every petitioner present in the office was grumbling for duties.
(21) On 13 December, 1993 the Court recorded that the petition had already been disposed of and no further orders were required.
(22) Cwp No. 1383/94 was filed by the school through its manager and the respondents were three, namely, (1) the Administrator of the National Capital Territory of Delhi; (2) The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi; and (3) the Director of Education. The petition was filed on 24 March, 1994. The school wanted a declaration that Section 20 of the Delhi School Education Act was ultra vires; issuing of writ, direction or order quashing the show cause notice dated 17 December, 1993; for expunging the defamatory remarks and reference made to the earlier Manager of the school; and for allowing the petitioners to appoint new staff on regular basis in place of earlier ones who had refused to join and to resume duty. On 25 March, 1994 the Court issued notice on the question as to why documents referred to in para 4 of the petition be not supplied to the petitioner. Notice was also issued on an interim application filed by the petitioner staling that in case the documents referred to in para 4 of the petition had not been supplied to the petitioner, as being alleged by the petitioner, no further proceedings shall be taken in pursuance to the show cause notice dated 27 December, 1993 till the next date of hearing. In para 2 of the petition it was mentioned that school was inspected on four occasions on 25 August, 1993, 28 September, 1993,26 October, 1993 and 3 December, 1993, and that out of the four inspections, inspection report, and that too incomplete, of the inspection conducted on 25 August, 1993, was made available to the school and further that no reports of the inspections conducted on 28 September, 1993 and 26 October, 1993 were made available to the school, though report of the inspection held on 3 December, 1993 had been made available. This petition was disposed of by judgment dated 6 May, 1994. The Court referred to para 4 of the petition which was reproduced in full in the judgment. The Court recorded the statement of Mr. Mahajan, learned Counsel for the respondents, that the copy supplied to the petitioner of the first report dated 25 August, 1993 was complete in all respects except that only the signatures of the persons who submitted the said report were not indicated. This was done. As regards report dated 26 October, 1993, a complete photo copy was supplied to the petitioner in Court. Regarding the report of 28 September, 1993 it was recorded that Mr. Mahajan said that no reference had been made to any such report in the impugned show cause notice. The Court also further recorded that Mr. Mahajan said that there was no such report in existence, and that report of inspection held on 3 December, 1993 had already been supplied to the petitioner. The Court, therefore, in the operative para of this order said as under:- "Thus, the grievance made by the petitioners in paragraph 4 of the writ petition has been redressed. The petitioner shall be at liberty to file a supplementary reply to the impugned show cause notice within 15 days from today. The respondents shall take a decision in the matter after considering the supplementary reply of the petitioner, if filed within time, in accordance with law. Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. May 6, 1994 sd/- Judge. Sd/Judge."
(23) Ms. Ahlawat, learned Counsel for the respondents, submitted that in order to examine and investigate the matter because of the persistent complaints of the teachers and other employees of the school, an inspection under Section 24(2) of the Act was ordered by the Director of Education by a panel of officers which comprised the Deputy Director of Education, Deputy Education Officer and one Principal of a Government school. The panel gave advance notice to the manager for inspection of the school so as to provide all necessary assistance based on documents and records. No document as asked by the panel officers was produced on the plea that all the records had been taken away by the income-tax authorities during the course of search and seizure operations conducted by them. During course of arguments we were told that the search and seizures were in fact directed against Mr. K.K.Mutneja, the manager, and because of that the school also came into the fold and where survey was also conducted by the income-tax authorities under the Income-tax Act, 1961. As per report of the panel complaints of the teachers and other employees of the school regarding payment of meagre amount of salary was found to be correct. The panel also found that the manager of the school was interfering in the day-to-day administration and academic work of the school which was contrary to Rule 59(m)of the Rules. Further it was also found that the Vice-Principle was not so appointed in accordance with the Rules. There was no record of the constitution of the managing committee in accordance with Rule 59(1 )(b)[(i) to (vi)] of the Rules. The panel came to the conclusion that the alleged manager of the school was acting as Principal in the functioning of the school and he himself was acting as managing committee, society and head of the school ignoring the fact that he could not perform all these duties. No record was also produced about the fees charged from the students, and their utilisation, etc. There was violation of Rules 181 to 185. Rules 181 to 185 provide for duties and responsibilities of the manager and the managing committee of the school. Rule 181 provides as to how the managing committee is to run the school and under Rule 182 it shall not cause any situation by which normal and smooth functioning of the school may be hampered, and shall also not interfere in day-to-day affairs of the school. Under Rule 184, the managing committee is to provide all reasonable facilities for inspection of the school and also for inspection of its account books, registers and other documents required by the Rules to be maintained by such schools. Under Rule 185, themanaging committee is not to act in a manner to affect adversely the interests of the school. Ms. Ahlawat submitted that in spite of the fact that inspection report was sent to the school, the alleged manager still continued flouting various provisions of the Act and directions issued under Sub-section (3) of Section 24 of the Act and failed to rectify the defects/deficiencies pointed out in the inspection report. When again there was a surprise inspection on 3 December, 1993 it was found that the school was functioning with handful of teachers appointed on daily wage basis and no regular teacher, who had been appointed earlier and who had made complaints against the management, was found present.
(24) Before us a great deal of arguments have been addressed that rules of natural justice had been violated to the prejudice of the petitioners. This is on two grounds, namely, (1) that relevant documents on the basis of which action has been taken have not been furnished to the petitioners, and (2) that petitioners had not been given any personal hearing. Both these arguments have no basis. We have not been pointed out to a single document which is either not with the petitioners or in-know of them. In the Writ Petition No. 1383/94, which was filed by the petitioners challenging the show cause notice, the only grievance was that an inspection report in complete had not been given to them which, as we have noted above, was already with the petitioner. As a matter of fact, earlier a complete inspection report had been given to the petitioner except that the names of the signatories had not been mentioned in the copy given to the petitioners. Petitioners did not complain that no other document had been given to them. We find in this petition the petitioners themselves annexed various documents which included the notice as to why the school was closed on certain dates and the reply thereto of the school; various other correspondence exchanged between the school and the office of the Director of Education; and complaints made by the teachers. In other two writ petitions filed by Sadhna Sharma copies of all other documents, which included the complaints made by the teachers to the Director of Education and the cheques which were shown to have been encashed by the teachers but in fact had been encashed by the manager or at his behest by others, had been supplied to the petitioners. We have been unable to comprehend as to how the petitioners had been handicapped ingiving their reply to the show cause notice before the impugned order under Section 20 of the Act was passed.
(25) In this writ jurisdiction we are not sitting in appeal against the order passed by the Administrator, and all we have to see is if the impugned order has been passed after the petitioners were given reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action and if material was existing on the basis of which action under Section 20 could be taken. As we have noted above, personal hearing is not a sine qua non of rules of natural justice.
(26) It was submitted by the petitioners that it was one thing that there was no managing committee than to say that the managing committee was irregularly constituted. We have been unable to appreciate such an argument. The case of the respondents is that there is no managing committee constituted as per Rules and not that there is no managing committee at all. The petitioners did not controvert the averments made by the respondents that factual position was that parents-teachers association and two teachers had represented that the managing committee was never elected in accordance with the provision of Rule 59(b) which specifically provided that for the purpose of elections to the managing committee, the head of the school shall be the returning officer and shall conduct, and be in charge of, the elections, and that no such elections were conducted. No decision of the managing committee had been produced and submitted to any of the authorities where in it could be perused that the managing committee,being responsible under Rules 181 to 185 of the Rules, had taken any decision. Ms. Ahlawat pointed out that no such managing committee had ever considered the special inspection report conducted by the panel of officers or the lawlessness prevailing in the functioning of the school and that the school was also closed unauthorisedly. Mr Swatantar Kumar said that if the managing committee had not been properly constituted, then why it was that the Director was nominating his nominees on the managing committee. In answer to this, Ms. Ahlawat said that since it was a recognised school it was as a matter of course that names of nominees of the Director were sent on a proforma and that would not mean that the department recognised that there was a properly constituted managing committee.
(27) It was submitted by Ms. Ahlawat that the managing committee suo motu could not close the school under any circumstance. The explanation of the school as to how the school was closed w.e.f. 21 September, 1993 to 25 September, 1993 was rejected as it was not found satisfactory. The petitioners had submitted that an untoward incident in the school had been created by Mrs. Sadhna Sharma, the Head Mistress, herself as the managing committee had earlier decided to terminate her services, and that Mrs. Sharma instigated some other teachers and in collusion with them was indulging in activities prejudicial to higher standard of imparting education. The petitioners said that on 20 September, 1993 some part of the school property was damaged for which police report was duly lodged since "some misguided students and teachers unthoughtfully an provokingly started creating disorder, caused damage to the property of the school, electricwiring,etc.resultinginelectric current inwalls and water coolers and all steel Almirahs and steel furnitures and endangering the safety and security of the students" and in order to ensure safety and security of the students it became necessary for the managing committee to get repairs done and for that purpose decided to suspend the studies from 21 September, 1994 to 25 September, 1994. Respondents have said that this story was merely a fabrication of the petitioners and no information whatsoever about the alleged incident was sent to the education department. In any case the managing committee could not suo motu close the school under any circumstance. It was submitted that the education department came to know about the closure of the school from the newspapers and also from the complaint received from the teachers, parents and students of the school, and further that the services of the Head Mistress were terminated without following the procedure prescribed under the Rules and consequent thereto teachers of the school went on dharma and that the teachers continued to do teaching job from the pavements as the school gates were not opened. It was submitted that this created alawlessness in the functioning of the school. The explanation regarding closure of school, as noted above, did not find favor with the Administrator.
(28) We find the Administrator has taken into account all the relevant circumstances on record to come to the conclusion that action under Section 20 of the Act was called for. The Administrator has duly considered the reply of the petitioners, and in our view not the basis of the record he had rightly came to the conclusion that action under Section 20 in the present case was called for. Teachers and employees of the school have been crying hoarse that they were not being paid full salary and signatures were being obtained from them for having received the full salary payment when it was not so. Nothing could be more grossly illegal than to deduct from the salaries of the teachers. They have been exploited because of large scale unemployment prevailing in the country. Petitioners have denied this, but they had no explanation to offer as to why they had to write letters to the teachers to collect their salaries from the office when their salaries were being automatically credited to their accounts in the Corporation Bank having acounter in the school premises. It only proves the case of the teachers that they had to sign on blank cheques which amounts were withdrawn by the manager and his men and out of that very small amount was being paid to them. This in itself was enough for the Administrator to take action under Section 20 of the Act. But that was not all. There was no managing committee which could be said to be functioning as per rules; school was unauthorisedly closed from 21 September, 1993 to 25 September, 1993 in violation of the Rules; services of Sadhna Sharma had been terminated without prior approval of the Director of Education; inspection of the school was not allowed to be carried out; there was gross indiscipline in the working of the school affecting the imparting of education; the school had employed daily wage teachers when there were regular teachers and they were not being given their duties; that Mr. K.K. Mutneja, the manager of the school, was behind all the violations; and that the managing committee was in effect merely a sham affair. We have also seen above that in the writ petition filed by the teachers-a Local Commissioner had to be appointed to see that they are taken on their respective duties, and the report of the Local Commissioner does not bring the petitioners in any bright colour. It was submitted that Rule 183 was not applicable as the school in the present case was not an aided one. That is not correct as the rule not only provides for proper utilisation of aid, but also provides that proper account of all fees and contributions received by the school shall be maintained.
(29) We have considered the rival submissions of the partics and have gone through whole of the records of the case and we are unable to find any error either of law or offacts for us to interfere in the impugned order. From the material in this case we find that the Lt. Governor was rightly satisfied that the manager/ managing committee of the school neglected to perform the duties imposed upon them by the provisions of the Act and the Rules and that it was expedient in the interest of the school education to take over the management of the school. Thus, the ingredients of Section 20 of the Act stood satisfied. We have also not been able to find anything wrong with the satisfaction arrived at by the Lt. Governor regarding the need for action under Section 20 of the Act. We are rather surprised why an action under Section 20 of the Act had not come too soon. We will, therefore, dismiss the writ petition with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 5,000.00 . Interim orders made earlier shall stand vacated.