Delhi High Court (August 7, 2001) 2002 (TLS)126880 2002-AD (Del)-2-641 ALL INDIA SIDHARTHA INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY Vs. Governor Lt. S. K. MAHAJAN ( 1 ) THE petitioner school had terminated the services of a few of its teachers without obtaining prior approval of the Director of Education as contemplated by Section 8 (2) of the delhi School Education Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). The Director of Education on receipt of information and on the basis of special inspection carried out under the provisions of Section 24 of the Act passed an order on 27/03/1998 issuing the following directions to the school under Section 24 (3) of the Act:- "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 and funds be collected only in the name of the school against the proper receipt. " ( 2 ). Being aggrieved by the issue of these directions, the petitioners have filed the present petition. The main contention of the petitioners is that once the services of a teacher have been terminated, the only remedy available to the teacher is to file an appeal under Section 8 (3) of the Act to the Delhi Schools Appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 11 of the act. The teachers whose services were terminated without prior approval of the Director of education and who were directed to be reinstated by the Director were not made parties to this petition. The teachers whose services were terminated without prior approval of the Director of education and who were directed to be reinstated by the Director were not made parties to this petition. While the matter was being heard, the Court was of the opinion that without the presence of the affected teachers, the petition may not be maintainable and the Court, therefore, on 30/10/2000 passed the following order:- "the order of the Director issued under Section 8 (3) of the Delhi School Education act, 1973 and the order passed by this Court on 2/04/1998 shall continue to remain in operation until and unless modified, Since the affected parties in this case would be teachers, the petitioner is, therefore, directed to implead those teachers who have been removed. " ( 3 ). Despite this direction having been given, the petitioners did not implead those teachers. In my opinion, the petition is liable to be dismissed only on the ground that the teachers who have been directed to be reinstated by the impugned order and who will be affected by any order that may be passed by this Court in favour of the petitioners having not been made parties to this petition and also on the ground that the orders dated 30/10/2000 passed by this Court have not been complied with by the petitioners. Even otherwise the petitioners have not made out any case on merits for the grant of any relief in this petition. ( 4 ). Under Section 8 (2) of the Delhi School Education Act, no employee of a recognised private school shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank nor his services be otherwise terminated except with the prior approval of the Director. A reading of the said provision clearly show that unless approval is granted by the Director no employee of recognised private school shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank nor shall his services be otherwise terminated. The effect of this provision is that in case the management of a school passes an order to remove, dismiss or terminate the services of an employee without the approval of the Director of Education, the removal, dismissal, reduction in rank or termination of services of the employee will be without jurisdiction. In case the order is without jurisdiction, there is no need to file an appeal under sub-Section 3 of Section 8 of the Act. In case the order is without jurisdiction, there is no need to file an appeal under sub-Section 3 of Section 8 of the Act. Under Section 24 of the Act, the Director of Education has the power to inspect the school at least once in each financial year in such a manner as may be prescribbed. Besides the annual inspection which may be carried out in a school, 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 him. Director of Education can issue directions to the Manager of the school requiring him to rectify any defect or deficiency found at the time of inspection or otherwise in the working of the school. If Manager of the school fails to comply with any such direction given by the director, he can take such action as he may deem fit including stoppage of aid, withdrawal of recognition or taking over the school under Section 20 of the Act. It clearly shows that the director has the powers and jurisdiction to give directions requiring the school to rectify any defect or deficiency found at the time of inspection or otherwise in the working of the school. This direction is not confined only to the deficiency found at the time of inspection but can also be issued when such deficiency or defect in the working of the school is otherwise brought to the notice of the Director. Since the school was found to have discontinued the services of certain teachers without prior approval of Director of Education, it was clearly a defect or deficiency found by the Director of Education in the working of the school and he, therefore, had the jurisdiction to issue direction directing the Manager of the school to rectify such defect by reinstating the employees whose services were wrongfully terminated without seeking prior approval of the Director of Education. ( 5 ). ( 5 ). The other directions given in the impugned order, namely, (i) not to run nursery classes and senior secondary classes in the school premises (ii) to issue formal appointment letters to all staff members (iii) to submit the proper account of fees received under different heads and amount spent under different heads; and (iv) to collect all the fee and funds only in the name of the school against proper receipt are also directions which, in my view, the Director has the power to issue for proper functioning of the school on the information received by him at the time of inspection or otherwise, It is not denied by the petitioner that the services of the teachers were dispensed with without obtaining prior approval of the Director of Education. There is thus clear violation of the provision of the Act. The school cannot be permitted to be run in violation of the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder 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 property, including the direction to reinstate the teachers. ( 6 ). I, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of the Director challenged in the present writ petition. The petition has no merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. --- *** --- .