Managing Committee Of Vidya vs State Of Haryana And Others on 24 August, 2009

           C.W.P. No.7311 of 2008                         -1-

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                            AT CHANDIGARH

                         C.W.P. No.7311 of 2008
                         DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 24, 2009

Managing Committee of Vidya
Niketan Senior Secondary School,Faridabad
                                                      .....PETITIONER
                               Versus
State of Haryana and others
                                                    ....RESPONDENTS

CORAM:       HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
                          ---

Present:      Mr.Mohnish Sharma, Advocate,
              for the petitioner.

              Mr.Sunil Nehra, A.A.G.,Haryana,
              for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

              Mr.Arihant Jain, Advocate,
              for respondent No.4.
                     ..

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral)

The management has filed this writ petition challenging the

order dated 31.8.2006 (Annexure P7) passed by the District Education

Officer, Faridabad (respondent No.3 herein) whereby the order of

termination of services of respondent No.4, was set aside on the ground that

before terminating the services of respondent No.4, prior approval as

required under Regulation 51 (4) of the Haryana School Education Rules,

2003, was not obtained. The petitioner has also inter-alia challenged the

order dated 12.9.2007 (Annexure P9) whereby the appeal filed by the

management was dismissed by the Commissioner & Director General

School Education, Haryana, Chandigarh. Against the said order, the

petitioner also filed a review application, which was dismissed vide order

dated 19.3.2008 (Annexure P11).

C.W.P. No.7311 of 2008 -2-

In nutshell, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that even

if the order of termination of services of respondent No.4 was set aside on

the ground of seeking no approval from the competent authority before

termination, even then in that situation the petitioner-management should be

permitted to proceed with the case from that stage and to secure the prior

sanction or approval from the competent authority. Learned counsel states

that the similar petitions filed by the petitioner management were dismissed

by a Division Bench of this Court, where the following order was passed:-

“Under the circumstances, we dismiss all the writ petitions,
however, making it open to the Management to approach the
competent authorities constituted under the Haryana School
Education Rules and its parent Act, namely, Haryana School
Education Act, 1995 (Act 12 of 1999) to secure the prior
sanction and it shall be open to the competent authority to
consider the matter afresh in the facts and circumstances of the
cases and take appropriate decision.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that this petition be

also dismissed with the same liberty. Learned counsel for the respondents

has no objection.

Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed, however, making

it open to the Management to approach the competent authorities constituted

under the Haryana School Education Rules and its parent Act, namely,

Haryana School Education Act, 1995 (Act 12 of 1999) to secure the prior

sanction and it shall be open to the competent authority to consider the

matter afresh in the facts and circumstances of the cases and take

appropriate decision.

August 24, 2009                       (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL)
vkg                                           JUDGE