Delhi High Court
Vaishali International School ... vs All India Siddharth Int. Educational ... on 18 August, 2006
Equivalent citations: 132(2006)DLT237
Author: S. Muralidhar
Bench: Mukul Mudgal, S. Muralidhar
JUDGMENT S. Muralidhar, J.
Page 2894 Backgrounds Facts
1. In a little over two weeks from today we will, on September 5, again celebrate `Teachers' Day'. There are many who belong to this noble tribe who work under exploitative conditions and whose plight goes largely unnoticed, except occasionally in judicial records. This is one such occasion. The appellant before us is a welfare Association of the teachers of Vaishali International School (hereafter 'the School') at 472-A, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi - 110 032. The School is run by the Respondent No. 1-All India Siddhartha International Educational Society (hereafter 'the Society'). The School was recognized by the Director of Education by letter dated 29.8.1991 initially for Classes I to VIII. Later, by an order dated 10.6.1996, the School obtained recognition from Class VIII to the secondary stage with effect from the academic session 1996-97.
Page 2895
2. Pursuant to an order dated 5.12.1997 passed by the Director of Education, a Special Inspection of the School was conducted on 9.1.1998 by a panel of officers appointed for the purpose of examining the accounts and financial records. The Inspection Panel submitted a report on 22.1.1998. Thereafter on 27.3.1998, directions under Section 24(3) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 ('the Act') were issued by the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi citing the inspection report, a copy of which was been sent to the said school for its comments, as well as certain complaints of the employees of the School. A set of five directions were issued to the Society requiring compliance within fifteen days.
3. Following this, nine teachers whose services had been terminated without obtaining the mandatory prior permission under the Act, were directed to be reinstated by an order dated 3.4.1998 passed by the Education Officer, Zone-I, District East.
4. On 31.7.1998, a letter was written by the Society to the Director of Education stating that the Society had been registered as Buddhist Minority Society and that "right from the opening of the school, till today the Directorate of Education has also been recognising the above said school as minority school." It was stated in the letter as under:
During the last two years, the Society is finding it difficult to run the school any more because of a number of disputes between the teachers and Management which has resulted considerable reduction in number of students. Due to decreasing number of students, at present enrollment of the student on the date mentioned above is nil and the income has decreased considerably and the society is aiding (sic needing) approximately Rs. one lakh per month. Now the society is not in a position to bear such a heavy amount. So the society has decided to close down the school/surrender its recognition with immediate effect under Rule 46 of the Delhi School Education Act and Rules 1973.
The information is accordingly submitted.
5. In response to this letter, the Directorate of Education wrote a letter dated 3.9.1998 to the Society to the following effect:
Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi Directorate of Education (Act Branch) No. 7055 Dated 3.9.98 To The President, All India Siddharth International Educational Society, 472-A, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi - 110 032.
Sub : Closure of School.
Sir, This is to refer your letter dated 31.7.1998 on the above noted subject. Your request has been considered by the Director of Education and is rejected. You are therefore, directed to continue the school in accordance with the provisions of Delhi School Education Act and Rules 1973.
Page 2896 You are also directed to explain justification of expenditure under following heads along with relevant documents.
Expenditure Expenditure Expnd. Expnd. Remarks
Head during during during
1995-1996 1996-97 1997-98
Rent. 36,000/- 18,000/- 2,40,000/- Rent agreement speaks
of payment of
Rent of Rs. 2000/- p.m.
to the landlady who is
incidentally wife of
Chairman of the society.
Examination 2389/- 34,000/- 97,775/- --
expenses
Generator -- -- -- --
expenses
General 2389/- 5,000/- 99,000/- --
expenses
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
(N S Tolia)
Addl. Director of Education (Act)
Pleadings
6. Thereafter the Society filed Writ Petition (C) No. 4855 of 1998 in this Court on 18.9.1998 seeking the quashing of the order dated 3.9.1998, passed by the Additional Director of Education, extracted hereinabove. The averments in Grounds 7(B) and (C) of the writ petition read as under:
7 (B) The impugned order is bad as from the perusal of Rule 46 of Delhi School Education Act & Rules which deals with the closure of the school, it is crystal clear that to close down the minority school, it is not required to obtain any approval from the Directorate of Education.
Therefore, the managing committee did not seek any approval from Directorate of Education for closing down the school. It is submitted that vide letter dated 31.7.98, society has only informed the Directorate of Education that the recognition granted to the managing committee has been surrendered with immediate effect and the school has been closed.
(C) Since no prior approval or permission is required to close down the minority institution i.e., the school in existence, there had been no occasion for the managing committee of the school to seek any permission from the Directorate of Education.
7. The appellant-Association, which was not made a party to this writ petition, was at its request imp leaded as a respondent some time in February 2002. Thereupon, it filed a counter affidavit pointing out that after illegally closing down the School, the Society was running another school under the name of MBM International School in the same premises. The averments to this effect are found in paras 13 and 14 of the Association's counter affidavit which read thus:
13. That the petitioners are trying to misguide the Hon'ble High Court. In the present petition the teachers who were mainly affected by closing Page 2897 down of the school have not been made a party. This has been done intentionally by the management to conceal the facts from the Hon'ble Court. It may also be brought to notice that in the present case the management has filed a petition for permission to close down the school and on the other side has filed an appeal before Lt. Governor of Delhi against Directorate of Education for not granting recognition in respect of MBM International School, which is functioning in the same premises of Vaishali International School and with the same students only by changing the name of school Society and staff. The same was turned down by Hon'ble L.G. on September 12, 2001.
14. That the facts as stated in the foregoing paras clearly show that the petitioners are having malafide intentions in their minds and the above-noted writ petition has been filed by them with oblique motives and illegal designs.
It is respectfully submitted that the petitioners intend to open a new school under a different banner and name after closing down the Vaishali International School. The school was never closed by the petitioners and in fact, only the teachers who have demanded the rights have been thrown out. Only the difference is that the name of the school was changed firstly to M.M. International School and now M.B.M. International School with the same situation and in the same premises.
8. In its counter affidavit, the Association furnished a list of 12 schools run by the Society in or around Delhi. It was specifically averred that the names of the societies and the schools are so similar and overlapping and that "none of these societies is representative of any minority either religious or linguistic. These societies have been formed only with the purpose of running schools".
9. The Association also drew the attention of the Court to the fact that the Society had earlier filed Writ Petition (C) No. 1638 of 1998 in this Court against the order dated 27.3.1998 issued by the Director of Education. In the said writ petition, an order dated 30.10.2000 was passed by the learned Single Judge directing the Society to implead the teachers who had been removed illegally and despite the said order, the Society did not implead the teachers. By a judgment dated 7.8.2001 while dismissing the said writ petition, the learned Single Judge found that the directions issued by the Directorate of Education on 27.3.1998 did not call for any interference All India Siddharth International Society v. Lt.Governor 2002 (2) AD (Del) 641. The said order dated 7.8.2001 of the learned Single Judge was not appealed against and became final. So did the directions of the Directorate of Education to the Society by its letter dated 27.3.1998 which had still not been implemented. Instead, the Society sought to illegally close the School.
Impugned order of the learned Single Judge
10. By the impugned order, out of which the present appeal arises, the learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition (C) No. 4855 of 1998 filed by the Society questioning the order dated 3.9.1998 passed by the Respondent No. 3. The learned Single Judge held that no valid reasons had been given by Respondent No. 3 Director for refusing to grant permission to Page 2898 close down the School. The learned Single Judge referred to a letter dated 26.11.2001 issued by the Directorate of Education during the pendency of the writ petition explaining the reasons why the school could not be taken over by the Director of Education in terms of the Act. In paragraph 2 of the said letter, it was stated thus:
2. As per provisions of the Section 20 of the DSER 1973 the duration of the taken over period is three years, thereafter, special permission is to be sought on year to year basis from the Administrator.
On the basis of the above provisions of the DSERA, 1973 Vaishali International School, Bhola Nath Nagar, Delhi (which was run by All India Siddhartha Educational Society) cannot be taken over by the Director of Education as:
(1) The management has already closed down the school and there is no student on roll, irrespective of the fact that the D.E. has not accorded his approval for closing down the school under rule 46 of the DSER, 1973.
(2) The premises in which the school was running has been sold on power of attorney and another unrecognised school in the name of MBM International School has been running in this premises.
(3) Because the school Vaishali International was a public School (unaided), the Director of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi is under no obligation to secure the job opportunities for the teachers and other staff members who are/were working in that school and the total responsibility lies with the erstwhile management for the payment of dues to the teachers.
11. The learned Single Judge held that the above reasons were not satisfactory. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge made the following order:
It has been suggested that the case be remanded back to the Directorate for taking an informed decision in accordance with law. That will only delay the proceedings further. It is stated that the teachers/employees have not been paid their dues and the matter has been languishing for several years. In these circumstances I consider it appropriate to look into the question of approval of closure under Section 46 of the DSEAR. There is a controversy as to the dues of the teachers/employees which, had it been addressed at that particular time, may have been easily answered. Unfortunately, this has not been done. The only conceivable solution is that an imprimatur may be given to a situation which has already, undoubtedly, occurred, that is, the closure of the School in July, 1998. It is accordingly held that the School shall have been deemed to have been closed with effect from the passing of these Orders. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that it would put the Petitioner in jeopardy in case the deemed approval granted by this Court is not related back to at least July, 1998. In view of the strong opposition of the teachers/employees a decision on this vexed issue would require a consideration of facts which are presently strongly disputed. This cannot appropriately be done in writ proceedings. In the event that the teachers/employees who have filed Writ Petitions in this Court are advised to initiate action for recovery of their dues from this date or any date earlier thereto, the Petitioner shall have the right to plead and thereafter prove that the School had closed down on 31.7.1998.
Page 2899 Writ Petition stands disposed of in these terms.
Aggrieved by the above order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant Association has filed the present appeal.
Submissions of counsel for the parties
12. We have heard the submissions of Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. R.M. Sinha, learned Counsel for the Society and Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3, the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor and the Additional Director of Education respectively.
13. The submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant may be summarized as under:
i) The attempt of the Society to close down the school was clearly in contravention of Rule 46 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 ('the Rules') since the School was never recognized as a minority school,
ii) The learned Single Judge could not have passed an order of deemed closure of the School contrary to the Act and Rules relegating the affected teachers, who had disputed the factum of having been paid arrears of salaries, to civil proceedings,
iii) The learned Single Judge had proceeded on the erroneous premise that the Society had sought the permission of the Director of Education for closure of the School and that such permission had been refused. On the contrary, Society had been throughout maintaining that since it was minority school there was no need to seek permission for closure.
iv) The learned Single Judge had overlooked the findings of the Inspection Panel which pointed out to serious irregularities as also to the fact that directions issued by the Director of Education had been flouted by the Society. In the circumstances, learned Single Judge ought to have held that the Society was not entitled to discretionary relief.
14. In reply, Mr. R.M.Sinha, learned Counsel for the Society submitted that even assuming that the School was not a minority school, it was not financially viable for the Society to continue to run the School. Since the submission that the School was not a minority school was contrary to what the Society had stated in the Writ Petition, as extracted above, Mr. Sinha was asked if any amendment of the pleadings had been permitted to reflect this changed stand. Mr. Sinha, while replying in the negative, was unable to offer a satisfactory reply as to how counsel could argue something contrary to the record. Mr. Sinha then dramatically posed the question whether the Director of Education was even now willing to take over the school and run it. He demanded to know why it was not willing to do so, particularly when the Society had repeatedly asked the Director of Education to take over the school. When the Court enquired of Mr. Sinha whether any written request had at all been made to the Director of Education that school be taken over by them, Mr. Sinha referred to the following passage in the report dated 22.1.1998 of the Inspection Panel:
It is also mentioned here that in the meeting held in the chamber of Addl. DE on 1.1.1998, Sh. Bharti the Manager of the school was also called. In this meeting Sh. Bharti agreed to take back all the terminated Page 2900 teachers but now the school authorities have refused for the same (page No. 18 Vol.III) saying that the case of these teachers is subjudiced in the Hon'ble High Court and referred to the 'Educational Tribunal'. He also expressed verbally that under the present circumstances the income of the school is too less to meet out the expenditure including the salaries of the teachers after the implementation of Vth Pay Commission. Under these conditions he is ready to hand over the school to Government to run provided rent of school building be paid to him.
It appears, therefore, there was no written request by the Society to the Director of Education that the School should be taken over by the latter. Further, this Report of the Inspection Panel, as well be seen hereafter, constitutes an indictment of the Society's functioning.
15. The Court also drew Mr. Sinha's attention to one of the principal objections voiced by the Directorate of Education in letter dated 26.11.2001 to its taking over the school, viz., that ''the premises in which the school was running has been sold on power of attorney and another unrecognized school in the name of MBM International School has been running in this premises.'' Mr. Sinha was unable to throw light on when this particular transaction took place except saying that it should have happened in the year 2001. He was also unable to point out that why this fact, which apparently took place during the pendency of the writ petition filed by the Society, was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge by it and came to light only in the letter dated 26.11.2001 of the Director of Education stating the reasons why the School could not be taken over. Mr. Sinha vehemently contended that in these circumstances it would be futile for the Society to be directed to run the School, since such a direction was not capable of being complied with. He submitted that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge did not call for any interference by this Court.
16. Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, learned Counsel appearing for the Additional Director of Education pointed out that at no stage had the School been recognized as a minority school. Therefore, it was bound to seek prior approval under Rule 46 of the Rules for closure. The Society had also not complied with the directions issued by the Directorate of Education on 27.3.1998. Ms. Ahlawat was candid in her submission that this attempt at `closure' of the school, without complying with the provisions of the Act or the Rules, appeared to be a device adopted by the Society to avoid complying with the directions to take back the teachers and pay them the arrears of salaries. Even otherwise, there were several irregularities in the running of the School by the Society. She drew our attention to the fact that the building in which the School was being run and for which rent was being paid, was in fact owned by the wife of the Chairman of the Society and no explanation had been given for the payments on this account, including a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- in the year 1997-98. She also confirmed that the directions issued on 27.3.1998 had not been complied with by the Society.
Consideration of the appeal on merits: Our findings
17. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the records of the case, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was in error in not dismissing the writ petition of the Society.
Page 2901
18. The first ground for such dismissal ought to have been the willful suppression of material facts in the writ petition. It is remarkable is that in the Writ Petition(C) 4855 of 1988 (out of which the present appeal arises) filed on 18.9.1998, there is no mention at all by the Society of the Report of the Inspection Panel, the directions issued consequent thereto on 27.3.1998 or even the fact of the Society having filed Writ Petition(C) No. 1638 of 1998 challenging those directions. These facts may not have come to light had the appellant Association not got itself imp leaded in the writ petition and filed its counter affidavit. Unfortunately, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge does not advert to these facts. We are of the considered view that the willful suppression of material facts was sufficient to disentitle the Society to any relief whatsoever, much less in the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
19. The second ground was the conduct of the petitioner Society which should have disentitled it to any relief. It may be recalled that the report of the Inspection Panel dated 22.1.1998 had pointed out numerous irregularities in the running of the said school. First, the Inspection Panel noticed that the total fee collected by the school as per the income and expenditure account was as follows:
1992-93 Rs. 8,10,810.00 1993-94 Rs.10,43,830.00 1994-95 Rs. 9,86,027.00 1995-96 Rs. 11,60,025.00 1996-97 Rs. 14,34,975.00 The Inspection Panel then proceeded to observe as under:
The school is collecting Transport charges separately from the student as per the receipts mentioned below submitted by a complainant and the necessary entry has been shown by the part-time Accountant of the school in the school books that means the school is doing some malpractices in maintaining the books of accounts:
Receipt No. Dated Amount 23354 2.7.97 200.00 432 3.9.97 100.00 23353 2.7.97 200.00
The School has also not produced above referred receipt books for inspection.
The school Manager Certified that except tuition fee no other fee is being collected by the school. But as per receipt No. 3379 dated 16.9.97, 3945 dated 19.12.97, 3354 & 3355 dated 22.12.97 the school has collected Science fee and examination fee separately (page No. 39-48) Vol. II).
It also noticed that the school had not paid any income tax and further that the fixed deposit amount in the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs had been encashed by the Society on 12.5.1997. Thereafter, the school had not kept any amount in cash and fixed deposits, thus violating the Act and the Rules.
Page 2902 The following findings were recorded in the Report of the Inspection Panel:
1. The financial position of the school is not sound. There is no balance of fixed deposits as on date.
2. As per the records made available during inspection it was revealed that the salaries of the teachers are being paid through cheques. However, the school has yet not implemented the Vth Pay Commission.
3. During the screening of the record it was noticed that the school authorities are concealing facts as one hand they are certifying that they are not charging any other fee except for the 'Tuition fee' while the complainant on the other hand has submitted some proofs of charging the Science Fee, examination fee and transportation fee etc. (page 34 to 48 Vol. II).
4. During the inspection it was also revealed that the school is running Nursery and Class XI as per the enrollment given by the School Authorities, without obtaining the permission from the competent authority which is in violation of DSER & Act 1973.
5. Regarding retrenchment of eight teachers the matter is sub-judice in the Hon'ble Court (Tribunal).
6. Records show that the teachers have been terminated even during the probation period as per the appointment letter issued to them and available on their personal files. But the teachers have claimed that they are working in the school much prior to the issuing of actual appointment letter.
20. It is upon receipt of the Inspection Panel report that certain directions came to be issued under Section 24(3) of the Act by the Directorate of Education to the Society on 27.3.1998. These directions were to the following effect:
i) Not to run nursery classes and senior secondary classes in the school premises w.e.f forthcoming session;
(ii) To issue formal appointment letters to all the staff members showing the actual date of appointment since when the employees are actually working in the school;
(iii) To reinstate the services of all the employees whose services have been terminated without seeking the prior approval of Director of Education as required under Section 8(2) of Delhi School Education Act, 1973;
(iv) To submit the proper account of fees received under different heads and amount spent under different heads;
(v) All the fees & funds be collected only in the name of the school against the proper receipt.
The specific compliance of the directions as referred above must reach the undersigned within 15 days of receipt of this order, failing which further necessary action may be taken against the managing committee of the school under Section 24(4) of Delhi School Education Act, 1973.
21. As mentioned earlier, the Society filed Writ Petition (C) No. 1638 of 1998 in this Court challenging the directions issued on 27.3.1998. The Page 2903 teachers whose services were sought to be terminated by the Society without prior approval of the Director of Education and who were directed to be reinstated by the above directions, were not made parties to the petition. On 30.10.2000 the Court directed the Society to implead the teachers. Despite this direction the teachers were not imp leaded as parties to the writ petition. The learned Single Judge by judgment dated 7.8.2001 observed that this by itself was sufficient to dismiss the writ petition. Nevertheless, the Court proceeded to discuss merits of the challenge and the scope of the powers of the Directorate of Education under Section 24 (3) of the Act. The learned Single Judge found that the Director had the jurisdiction to issue the directions and held that by failing to take back the teachers whose services had been terminated without prior approval of the Director, the Society had violated the Act. The learned Single Judge further held:
The school cannot be permitted to be run in violation of the provisions of the Act and rules framed there under and in case the Director having come to know, on the basis of the report received after inspection or otherwise, that the school is violating the provisions of the Acts and Rules, he has a power to give directions as are necessary for running the school properly, including the direction to reinstate the teachers. I, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of the Director challenge in the present writ petition. The petition has no merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
22. It is not disputed that the above directions were not complied with by the Society. These directions have become final and binding with the dismissal of the earlier writ petition W.P. (C) No. 1638 of 1998 filed by the Society challenging them. We are of the view that when the Society not having complied with the directions contained in the letter dated 27.3.1998 of the Director of Education, the challenge to which was rejected by this Court on 7.8.2001, no further writ petition on behalf of such Society ought to have been entertained at all. Section 24 (1) of the Act states that every recognised school shall be inspected at least once in each financial year and under Sub-section (2) the Director may arrange for a special inspection of any school. Section 24 (3) states that "The Director may give directions to the manager to rectify any defect or deficiency found at the time of inspection or otherwise in the working of the school." Section 24 (4) spells out three possible consequences if the directions issued under Section 24 (3) are not complied with. These include stoppage of aid, withdrawal of recognition and where it is not a minority school, the taking over of the school. An illegal closure of the school by the management cannot help it escape the liability under Section 24 (3). We reiterate that a strict view requires to be taken of the non-compliance with the binding directions issued to the management of a school under Section 24 (3) of the Act. Otherwise, the very purpose of this provision, on which the entire regulatory mechanism to govern the functioning of private schools under the Act hinges, would be defeated. A party that willfully disregards such directions can continue to act with impunity in attempting to close the school, bring about a fait accompli, and then come to the court seeking protection if such attempt is unsuccessful. In such instances, the court would do well to insist that the binding order under S. 24 (3) of the Act be first complied before granting any discretionary relief sought by such party.
Page 2904
23. The third reason why the Society's writ petition ought to have been dismissed was that the refusal by the Respondent No. 3 to permit the School to close down was, in the above circumstances, perfectly justified. There is nothing on record in the form of any document or order to indicate that the minority status claimed by the Society was ever granted by the Director of Education. In the circumstances, the attempt of the Society to first close the school and then write to the Directorate of Education stating that it was merely informing the latter of its decision to close down the school was in clear violation of Rule 46 of the Rules, which reads as under:
Rule 46: Closing down of a school or any class in a school.- No managing committee shall close down a recognised school, not being an unaided minority school, or an existing class in such school without giving full justification and without the prior approval of the Director, who shall, before giving such an approval, consult the Advisory Board.
The only way the society could have avoided the mandate of Rule 46 was to show that it was an unaided minority school. Therefore, initially the Society desperately sought to contend that it was a minority school and kept maintaining this even in the writ petition, as noticed hereinabove. That plea was palpably false and quite rightly the Director of Education by letter dated 3.9.1998 rejected the so called 'closure' of the said school and directed it to be continued to be run in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules.
24. The plea of the Society that it should be taken over by the statutory authorities under the Act was outside the scope of the writ petition. Such a request was never made by the Society formally to the authorities. Secondly, with the Society not complying with the binding directions issued to it under Section 24 (3) or respecting the judicial verdict against it by this Court, the question of requiring the authorities to take over the School did not arise. Thirdly, the reasons given in the letter dated 26.11.2001 by the Directorate of Education for not being able to take over the School were not such that could be termed irrelevant or arbitrary. The society was bound to give a valid explanation to each of the objections pointed out, which plainly it did not. For instance, during the pendency of the writ petition in the present round, the Society sold off the premises on power of attorney and facilitated the running of another unrecognized school from the same premises. This it did even without rectifying any of the defects and irregularities pointed out in the report dated 22.1.1998 of the Inspection Panel. S. 24 (4) of the Act states "If the manager fails to comply with any direction given under Sub-section (3), the Director may ...take such action as he may think fit, including...." The word `may' in Section 24 (4) of the Act indicates that there is a discretion in the Director not to take over the school in the event of a default in complying with a binding direction under Section 24 (3) of the Act. Closure is not an inevitable consequence of such failure. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that there was a deemed closure of the School.
Summary of our findings Page 2905
25. At this juncture it will be useful to summarise the findings arrived at by us in this judgment:
i) The Society is not a minority institution as claimed by it. There is no evidence produced either before the learned Single Judge or before us to substantiate this claim of the Society. It was, therefore, bound to comply the provisions of the Act and the Rules as a non-minority institution. In particular, the Society could not have closed down the School without obtaining the prior permission under Rule 46 of the Rules. In these circumstances, the closure of the School, as informed by the Society to the Director of Education by its letter dated 31.7.1998, was illegal.
ii) The attempt to illegally close down the School was a device to avoid complying with the binding directions issued by the Director of Education on 27.3.1998 under Section 24(3) of the Act. Respondent No. 3 was justified in refusing the permission to the Society to close down the said school. There is no infirmity in the order dated 3.9.1998 issued by Respondent No. 3 to this effect. The challenge to the order dated 3.9.1998 must fail.
iii) The Society willfully suppressed material facts in Writ Petition (C) No. 4855 of 1998 filed by it before the learned Single Judge. In particular it suppressed the fact of having earlier filed Writ Petition (C) No. 1638 of 1998 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 7.8.2001. The writ petition of the Society in the present round ought to have been dismissed on this ground itself.
iv) Even while the writ petition was pending, the Society sold off the premises on power of attorney and facilitated the running of another unrecognized school from the same premises. The Society never disclosed this fact to the court.
v) The Society failed to comply with the binding directions issued by the Director of Education on 27.3.1998. The teachers illegally terminated were not taken back even after the learned Single Judge dismissed the Society's writ petition on 7.8.2001.
The above findings depict the recalcitrance of the Society and its adamant refusal in complying with the law and a judicial verdict. For over 8 years, the teachers have been without any remedy despite a valid order dated 27.3.1998 in their favor and a judicial verdict dated 7.8.2001 of this Court against the Society. The conduct of the Society poses a serious challenge to the legitimacy of the legal system since the Society has, with impunity, been able to avoid the consequences of its illegal actions.
Some general observations
26. The present case throws light on a disturbing scenario in the field of education in Delhi. It would appear that there is little to choose between the perils of an unregulated private sector and an unaccountable public sector in education. The number of private schools has grown phenomenally in the past few years, some recognised, and many not. The victims are not only the innocent children desperately seeking education, who may find to their horror some years down the line that they had spent precious years of their student Page 2906 lives in an unrecognised institution and which education entitles them to nothing legitimate. There are the helpless parents who, in an education market where demand invariably exceeds supply, have to spend considerable sums of hard earned money hoping to give their wards the best education possible. Then, we have thousands of teachers working in exploitative conditions in many of the mushrooming private schools. The role of the State is minimal when it comes to their plight as reflected in the letter dated 26.11.2001 of the Directorate of Education. It will be recalled that one of the reasons for not taking over the School was:
(3) Because the school Vaishali International was a public School (unaided), the Director of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi is under no obligation to secure the job opportunities for the teachers and other staff members who are/were working in that school and the total responsibility lies with the erstwhile management for the payment of dues to the teachers.
The challenge before the legal system then is to provide an effective redressal for the problems faced by each of these segments. This Court in Delhi Abhibhavak Mahasangh v. Union of India had an occasion to issue a series of directions with a view to dealing with the recurrent problem of an unregulated private education system, in the context of the charging of exorbitant fees. This Court had hoped that the statutory authorities would use their powers to bring about the positive changes and that the view of education as commerce would give way to viewing education as a professional service. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also expressed its concern about an unregulated private sector in education in P.A. Inamdar v. State of Karnataka (2005) 6 SCC 537. In para 89 of the said judgment it was observed: "As of now, imparting education has come to be a means of livelihood for some professionals and a mission in life for some altruists. Education, accepted as a useful activity, whether for charity or for profit, is an occupation. Nevertheless, it does not cease to be a service to society. And even though an occupation, it cannot be equated to a trade or a business." The fundamental right to education enshrined in Article 21-A of the Constitution obliges the state to ensure education of a minimum acceptable standard in the public sector for children between the ages of six and fourteen. Its regulation of the private sector in education has to be effective as well. It is high time that a comprehensive review of the working of the Act is undertaken by the Government of NCT of Delhi to plug the obvious loopholes, particularly in the context of the running of private unaided schools. For instance, there is no indemnity fund to protect the teachers of private unaided schools whose salaries may be either underpaid or not paid at all. There appears to be little teeth in some of the enforcement provisions and the statutory authority is often rendered a helpless by-stander.
Conclusion and Directions
27. Now for the consequential directions. The members of the appellant Association, who are teachers of the School run by the Society have been left Page 2907 in the lurch. They have been battling the Society for over 8 years. Despite the law coming to their aid and there being a binding order of the Director of Education in their favor, they have been unable to have it enforced on account of the unscrupulous conduct of the Society. It appears that even earlier they filed Writ Petition (C) No. 3944 of 1997 in this Court complaining of harassment and victimisation by the Society which was forcing them to accept salaries much lower that what they were entitled to. It required this Court to direct that their salaries should be paid by cheques. It also appears that many of the teachers had to approach the Delhi School Education Tribunal against the arbitrary termination of their services. Many others have filed petitions in this Court which are said to be pending. It also appears that the Society was proceeded against by the Provident Commissioner for irregularities committed on that score. Overall, it appears the Society has been in conflict with the law on many occasions. We do not appreciate at all how the Directorate of Education did not take severe action against the Society when it admittedly sold off the premises housing the School on a power of attorney and facilitated an unrecognized school in the name of M.B.M. International School being run from the same premises. Our attention has been drawn to a list of 12 schools run by the Society, in or around Delhi, six of which at least are in Delhi. We do not wish to speculate on the affairs of these schools except to remind the statutory authorities of their duty to ensure that the Act and the Rules are being complied with by the Society and its associates even in regard to these other schools.
28. We are really concerned in this appeal with the plight of the teachers who, we believe, are entitled to some redress after so many years of struggle. No purpose would be served in directing their reinstatement, on account of the changed circumstances. However, they should all be paid their arrears of salaries and other statutory dues. Time bound directions to both the Society and Respondent No. 3 are called for. We accordingly, direct as under:
i) The impugned Order dated 25.5.2005 of the learned Single Judge is set aside.
ii) The School cannot be considered as having been closed down with effect from 31.7.1998 and the Society will be liable in law as a consequence thereof to pay all the statutory and other dues to the teachers and staff. Respondent No. 3 is directed to take consequential steps on this basis forthwith.
iii) The Respondent No. 1 Society shall pay all the teachers of the School, including those who are members of the appellant Association, within a period of four weeks from today and in any event not later than 30.9.2006, their entire arrears of salaries and other statutory dues calculated on the basis of their not having been terminated or suspended. The sums shall be paid together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the illegal termination/suspension of their services till the date of payment.
iv) The Respondent No. 3 Director of Education is directed to render all possible assistance to the teachers in having this judgment implemented in letter and spirit. Any further default by the Society is required to be dealt with severely and promptly by Respondent No. 3.
Page 2908
v) It would be open to the Directorate of Education to constitute a panel of experts to have a special inspection of each of the schools run by the Respondent No. 1 Society or its associate societies within the NCT of Delhi, and issue appropriate directions to correct the irregularities, if any, found in the running of any such school. Also, the Director of Education would be well advised to alert the public about the conduct of any such school which is being run in violation of the law. These warnings are required to be issued periodically and given the widest possible publicity.
27. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed with costs which are quantified at Rs. 25,000/- which shall be paid by the Respondent No. 1 Society to the appellant Association on or before 30.9.2006.