Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.27 seconds)
Vishwajyoti vs Virender Kumar Sardana on 24 March, 2026 cites

Ms. Manju Tomar And Ors. vs Nct And Ors. on 9 December, 2009

22. The decision in Manju Tomar & Ors. v. NCT and Ors.1 carry this issue almost to the point of conclusion. The Division Bench of this Court held that closure of the school without prior permission of the Director was illegal, even though the school had in fact become non-functional on the ground. It nevertheless granted ex-post facto sanction only because the factual situation had become irreversible, while making it clear that the management could not take advantage of its own wrongful conduct and could not alter the service conditions of employees to their detriment. The Supreme Court has now stated the position even more clearly.2 It held that the "closure" contemplated for the purpose of Rule 47 must be a valid closure, that is to say, one carried out with prior approval under Rule 46. It further held that where the school was closed de hors Rule 46, the management could not use that very illegality to shift the burden of staff salaries and service benefits elsewhere.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 2 - Manmohan - Full Document

Anjna Sharma And Ors. vs Shishu Bharti Vidyalaya And Ors. on 6 December, 2013

24. This distinction is not technical. It goes to the root of the defence. If factual shutdown alone were enough, Rule 46 would be reduced to a formality that managements could ignore first and explain later. The law is framed to prevent exactly that. The Director must examine whether the justification is real, whether employee liabilities can be met, whether students can be protected, and whether closure should at all be permitted. That is why consultation with the Advisory Board is built into the rule itself. It is also why the Director, while granting closure, may impose conditions. The decision in Anjna Sharma v. Shishu Bharti Vidyalaya,3 recognises this expressly and holds that Rule 47 may serve as a guide while framing conditions under Rule 46, including conditions concerning absorption of teachers and students in other schools run by the same society.
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 2 - V J Mehta - Full Document

New Delhi Municipal Council . vs Manju Tomar on 27 July, 2023

23. That reasoning fits the present controversy with considerable force. On the school's own showing, what existed here was, at best, a request for closure and not an order of closure. The management may have decided to stop admissions, suspend classes, communicate its intention to parents, or lock the premises. None of that amounts to a closure in the eye of law so long as the Director had not granted approval under Rule 46. On the present record, the Directorate's position has consistently been that the application for closure remained under consideration and that the school had stopped educational activity on its own without waiting for approval. The matter must therefore be approached on the footing that what occurred from 1 st 1 2009 SCC OnLine Del 4036 2 NDMC & Anr. v. Manju Tomar & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2272 Signature Not Verified Dgitally Signed CONT.CAS(C) 1365/2016 & connected matters Page 13 of 25 By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:31.03.2026 13:39:26 April, 2020 was unilateral stoppage of functioning, not lawful closure.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1