IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.21954 OF 2009
Gyan Mandir Society and Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Ashok Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents
ORDER
T.S. THAKUR, J.
1. In this petition for special leave to appeal the petitioners
call in question the correctness of an order dated 20th July,
2009 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi
whereby L.P.A. No.1307 of 2007 filed by the petitioners has
been dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.75,000/- and
directions issued by the learned Single Judge of the High
Court in W.P.(C) No. 11778 of 2006 affirmed.
2
2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the writ petition and
the Letters Patent Appeal have been set out in detail by the
High Court making it unnecessary for us to state them over
again. Suffice it to say that W.P.(C) 11778 of 2006 was filed by
the teachers employed with the petitioner society running a
neighbourhood school at Tis January Lane, New Delhi falling
within the NDMC area. With the allotment of an area
measuring 2.284 acres at Sadiq Nagar in favour of the
petitioner – society the temporary allotment made in favour of
the petitioner’s society at Tis January Lane came to an end on
31st of March, 1997. The society was accordingly asked to
hand over the possession of the land but since the school was
catering to the needs of about 500 students and several
teachers had been employed by the society to impart
education to the students, practical difficulties were
encountered in handing over the site. After detailed
deliberations and prolonged correspondence the NDMC offered
to take over the school on “as is where is” basis. A letter to
that effect was issued by the L&DO on 1st April, 2002. The
possession of the school was pursuant to that letter handed
3
over to the L&DO on 8th March, 2006, who on the same day
delivered the possession of the school building to the NDMC.
3. In the meantime the society filed Writ Petition (Civil)
17889-90 of 2005 seeking permission to construct a building
for a senior secondary school at Sadiq Nagar over the site
allotted in its favour. The High Court allowed that writ petition
by its order dated 16th March, 2006. It is note-worthy that in
the said proceedings the society had made a categorical
statement that students studying in the Tis January Lane
school can be accommodated by the society in the school
being run by it at Andrews Ganj on freeship basis and if fees
are charged, the same shall not be in excess of what they were
paying in the Tis January Lane school.
4. W.P.(C) No.11778 of 2006 was at that stage filed by the
teachers employed by the society for its Tis January Lane
school in which they prayed for the following reliefs:-
a) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to
respondent No.1 to cancel the allotment of the Sadiq
4
Nagar site of school measuring 2.34 acres allotted to
respondent Nos. 4 & 5 vide dated 27.08.1975;
(b) issue appropriate writ, orders and
directions to the respondent No.3 to immediately
and forthwith to take over the possession of the said
Indian school/site from the respondent Nos. 4 & 5
and to seize all the records of the public school with
freezing of the bank accounts of respondent No. 4 &
5;
c) issue appropriate writ, orders or directions
to respondent No. 3 to de-recognize the said public
school at Sadiq Nagar, New Delhi and to make
arrangements for shifting the existing school at Tis
January Lane to the Sadiq Nagar site;
(d) issue appropriate orders/directions to
respondent No. 3 to ensure the protection of the
services of the petitioners and the payment of the
arrears of their salaries at the earliest;
(e) issue appropriate writ, order or directions
for holding an enquiry under the direct supervision
of this Hon’ble Court to fix the responsibilities of the
concerned officials of the State whereby the Sadiq
Nagar site of the school located at Josip Broz Tito
Marg, New Delhi was misused for running a public
school in the name and style of “Indian School” on
the site allotted for shifting the existing Smt. R.K.K.
Gyan Mandir Middle School from Tis January Lane,
New Delhi and
(f) issue such other writ,
order/orders/directions, which this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case in the light of the above
averment and in order to secure the ends of justice
5
for which acts the humble petitioners shall remain
grateful to this Hon’ble Court.
5. A Single Bench of the High Court allowed the above writ
petition by its order dated 20th September, 2007 with the
following directions :-
(1) The Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 shall ensure that
the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 16 are accommodated
appropriately in its unaided school, i.e. Indian
School, within four weeks from today; the said
teachers shall be absorbed on permanent basis;
their salary, allowances and other conditions
shall be preserved with continuity of service.
The arrears of 5% contribution for the last one
year, payable to the petitioner Nos.2 to 16, shall
be paid by the society within 6 weeks, to them.
This shall be over and above the Rs.1,00,000/-
amount volunteered to be paid by the society,
as a good will gesture to them. That amount too
shall be paid, if not already paid.
(2) Simultaneously, the said respondents shall take
steps to effectuate their statement about
assimilating all the existing students (from the
aided school in the Tis January Lane) in the
Indian school, on “freeship basis”. The said
students shall not be required to pay any
amount over and above what has been paid by
them all this while.
(3) The society and fourth respondent shall ensure
that the students of the aided school are given
free transportation to the unaided school, and
back to the Tis January Lane area as long as
the students of the aided school study in the
6Indian school. It shall do all things necessary
to meaningfully assimilate such children in the
Indian school.
(4) The GNCT shall ensure compliance with the
above directions; if necessary, it shall sanction
additional sections, wherever required in the
unaided school, to accommodate the influx of
the students from the aided school as well as
teachers and employees from there. It shall
continue to preserve and protect the status of
the petitioner employees as employees of an
aided school.
(5) A status report disclosing due compliance with
the above directions, and action taken in that
regard shall be filed within 6 weeks, before this
court, by the fourth and fifth respondents, and
GNCT.
6. Aggrieved by the above order the society preferred Letters
Patent Appeal No.1307 of 2007 which has been as noticed
earlier dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by
the order impugned in this petition with costs assessed at
Rs.75,000/-.
7. When the matter came up before this Court on 16th
December, 2009, Mr. Desai, learned senior counsel for the
petitioners made a statement that the petitioner society was
7
prepared to absorb all the students and the teachers employed
for the school at Tis January Lane, New Delhi, from the next
academic year, provided the students and the teachers were
willing to join the petitioners-school. Mr. Sen, learned counsel
appearing for the NDMC was also granted time to seek
instructions as to whether the NDMC was prepared to absorb
the teachers.
8. Pursuant to the above direction, Mr. Sen submitted at
the bar that while the NDMC is willing to accommodate
students, who are not willing to join the Indian School of the
petitioner society it has no legal obligation what so ever to
absorb the teachers who were employed by the petitioner
society for running the school at Tis January Lane. It was
argued that since the teachers had themselves not prayed for
any direction from the High Court for absorption in the service
of NDMC, there was no question of issuing any direction to
that effect especially when the same would go beyond the
prayer made in the writ petition. It was submitted that the
High Court had rightly concluded that the society was obliged
8
not only to adjust the students but also the teachers employed
in connection with the running of the school at Tis January
Lane.
9. There is in our opinion considerable merit in the
submission of Mr. Sen. The High Court has after a careful
consideration of the matter correctly held that the society was
obliged to absorb the teachers and the students from Tis
January Lane. The view taken by the High Court does not
suffer from any error of law or jurisdiction to warrant
interference by this Court in exercise of its powers under
Article 136 of the Constitution. In fairness to Mr. Desai, we
must mention that even he did not pursue the challenge to the
orders passed by the High Court in so far as the same directs
the society to adjust and absorb the students and teachers
from the Tis January Lane school. All that Mr. Desai argued
was that direction No.3 issued by the learned Single Judge
and upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court was
totally beyond the scope of writ petition inasmuch as there
was neither any prayer in the petition regarding grant of free
9
transportation to the students from Tis January Lane nor was
there any legal justification for the issue of any such direction.
He urged that this Court could delete the said direction and
dispose of the present petition.
10. Mr. Sen, learned counsel appearing for the NDMC had no
objection to that course of action. Even otherwise, we are of
the view that the direction regarding free transportation to
students from Tis January Lane to the Indian school does not
have any contractual or other legal basis to support the same.
According to the petitioner society also the school is not
providing any transportation to the students nor is there any
obligation to do so. Be that as may be, whether or not free
transport should be offered to students who may be adjusted
in the Indian school was never the matter in issue before the
High Court or in the writ petition filed by the teachers. The
students were also not parties to the proceedings either
individually or collectively. That being the position, we are of
the view that direction No.3 issued by the learned Single
Judge and affirmed by the High Court needs to be deleted and
10
is accordingly deleted. We may however clarify that this order
would not prevent the students from seeking appropriate
redress in appropriate proceedings before the competent Court
or authority and claiming free transportation to and fro Indian
school established by the petitioner society. In any such
proceedings the prayer regarding transportation shall be
examined uninfluenced by the observations made in this
order. Beyond the modification indicated above we see no
reason what so ever to interfere with the orders passed by the
High Court. The petition is, with the above observations,
disposed of. No costs.
……………………………J.
(J.M. PANCHAL)
……………………………J.
(T.S. THAKUR)
New Delhi
February 16, 2010