CWP-7032-2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 233 DR. SWARAN LATA MANAGEMENT AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present:- Mr. Ms. Shabnam Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R. K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anshul Labana, Advocate for respondents no.1, 3 and 4. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA The the judgment passed by the Educational Tribunal Annexure P-9, whereby proven misconduct upheld. 2. Facts of the case in brief are, the petitioner was appointed Chemistry vide letter of appointment chargesheeted of Class XI during the academic them for not taking would not be promoted to Class XII enquire into the charges, and 2019 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of Decision: DR. SWARAN LATA Versus MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE DYAL SINGH PUBLIC SCHOOL OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Mr. Shvetanshu Goel, Advocate with Ms. Shabnam Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R. K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anshul Labana, Advocate for respondents no.1, 3 and 4. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (Oral) The petition has been filed seeking a writ of judgment passed by the Educational Tribunal , whereby the petitioner’s dismissal from service on account of proven misconduct, vide order dated 06.07.2011 Facts of the case in brief are, the petitioner was appointed vide letter of appointment, chargesheeted on 17.03.2011, on the allegation of misb during the academic session 2010 them for not taking private tuition from her. She had also threatened not be promoted to Class XII. An enquiry enquire into the charges, and she was afforded IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-7032-2019 Date of Decision: 17.03.2025 …Petitioner(s) DYAL SINGH PUBLIC SCHOOL …Respondent(s) TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA with Ms. Shabnam Mahajan, Advocate Mr. R. K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari quashing judgment passed by the Educational Tribunal, Karnal, dated 01.12.2018, dismissal from service on account of .2011, Annexure P-5, has been Facts of the case in brief are, the petitioner was appointed as PGT dated 06.09.1996. She was allegation of misbehaviour with students session 2010-11, and mentally harassing . She had also threatened that they nquiry officer was appointed to ed due opportunity to present her DYAL SINGH PUBLIC SCHOOL quashing , dismissal from service on account of , has been as PGT . She was s ing that they fficer was appointed to to present her Aman Dua 2025.03.27 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CWP-7032-2019 version. The enquiry report under: From the evidence discussed me, it has been proved fully that Dr. Swaran Lata had threatened Isha D/o Mrs. Varsha Chaudhary, Navneet S/o Mrs. Sheela Rani, Anubhav Bhankar S/o Ishwar Singh Bhankar and Gautam Saini S/o Sh. Ravinder Saini students of 11 of session 2010 private tu class. Dr. Swaran L Singh Joon and Karan S/o Mrs. Bharti for tak her and had a Joon and Rs. 2000/ had also demanded Rs. 10,000/ Virk but on his failure to pay her this huge amount demanded Rs. 5000/ and pay to her. Thus, the charge is full proved. 2.1. Based upon that 08.06.2011, Annexure P 23.06.2011, Annexure P enquiry officer, the School Chairman passed the impugned order from service under Rule (Services, Recr School Rules’) 2.2. The petitioner filed an appeal which was decided vide judgment dated the dismissal order dated School’s Management to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the 2019 -2- version. The enquiry report dated 28.05.2011 From the evidence discussed above and the enquiries made by me, it has been proved fully that Dr. Swaran Lata had threatened Isha D/o Mrs. Varsha Chaudhary, Navneet S/o Mrs. Sheela Rani, Anubhav Bhankar S/o Ishwar Singh Bhankar and Gautam Saini S/o Sh. Ravinder Saini students of 11 of session 2010-11 from very beginning of the session to take private tuition from her otherwise they will not promo class. Dr. Swaran Lata had compelled Anu Jo Singh Joon and Karan S/o Mrs. Bharti for tak her and had also demanded and accepted Rs. Joon and Rs. 2000/- from Karan as tuition fee. Dr. Swaran Lata had also demanded Rs. 10,000/- as tuition fee from Anmol Singh Virk but on his failure to pay her this huge amount demanded Rs. 5000/- which also the said student could not afford and pay to her. Thus, the charge is full proved. Based upon that, a show cause notice , Annexure P-3, which was duly replied , Annexure P-4. Considering her reply as well as findings of the fficer, the School Chairman passed the impugned order under Rule 27(ii)(c) of Dyal Singh Public School Employees (Services, Recruitment, Conduct and Discipline) Rules, 2000 School Rules’). The petitioner filed an appeal before the Educational Tribunal, which was decided vide judgment dated 28.03.2014 the dismissal order dated 06.07.2011 was set aside, giving liberty to the Management to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the 28.05.2011, Annexure P-2, concluded as above and the enquiries made by me, it has been proved fully that Dr. Swaran Lata had threatened Isha D/o Mrs. Varsha Chaudhary, Navneet S/o Mrs. Sheela Rani, Anubhav Bhankar S/o Ishwar Singh Bhankar and Gautam Saini S/o Sh. Ravinder Saini students of 11th class non-Medical group very beginning of the session to take tion from her otherwise they will not promoted to 12th ata had compelled Anu Joon D/o Surender Singh Joon and Karan S/o Mrs. Bharti for taking tuitions from so demanded and accepted Rs.5000/- from Anu aran as tuition fee. Dr. Swaran Lata as tuition fee from Anmol Singh Virk but on his failure to pay her this huge amount, she which also the said student could not afford and pay to her. Thus, the charge is full proved. a show cause notice was issued to her, dated , which was duly replied to vide letter dated . Considering her reply as well as findings of the fficer, the School Chairman passed the impugned order of dismissal of Dyal Singh Public School Employees uitment, Conduct and Discipline) Rules, 2000 (for short, ‘the before the Educational Tribunal, 28.03.2014, Annexure P-7, whereby was set aside, giving liberty to the Management to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The judgment was concluded as above and the enquiries made by me, it has been proved fully that Dr. Swaran Lata had threatened Isha D/o Mrs. Varsha Chaudhary, Navneet S/o Mrs. Sheela Rani, Anubhav Bhankar S/o Ishwar Singh Bhankar and Gautam Saini Medical group very beginning of the session to take th o Surender ing tuitions from m Anu aran as tuition fee. Dr. Swaran Lata as tuition fee from Anmol Singh he which also the said student could not afford dated vide letter dated . Considering her reply as well as findings of the of dismissal of Dyal Singh Public School Employees (for short, ‘the before the Educational Tribunal, , whereby was set aside, giving liberty to the Management to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after The judgment was Aman Dua 2025.03.27 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CWP-7032-2019 challenged by the Management before this Court titled Dyal Singh College Trust Society and Managing Committee, Dyal Singh Public School and others, which was disposed of following observations: and have also perused the impugned order, Un of 2003 as well as Amended Rules of 2007. that this fact was not brought to the Authority. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that it was in the notice of the Appellate impugned judgment as nothing has been mentioned either in some document or in the written statement that Authority was having the knowledge about substitution of earlier Rules. for the petitioner as well as substituted Rules, it appears that the impugned order has been passed without taking consideration the amended Rules of 2007. direction to the Appellate Authority i.e respondent No.1 to take into consideration the Rules of 2007 and pass necessary order after hearing both the par 2.3. In view thereof under the Haryana School Education (Amendment) ‘Rules of 2007 dismissal from service against leading to passing of the impugned judgment her appeal. 2019 -3- challenged by the Management before this Court Dyal Singh College Trust Society and Managing Committee, Dyal Singh v. Educational Tribunal for Educational Institutions at Karnal which was disposed of vide order dated following observations: Heard the arguments of learn and have also perused the impugned order, Un of 2003 as well as Amended Rules of 2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner has very fairly admitted that this fact was not brought to the Authority. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that it was in the notice of the Appellate impugned judgment as nothing has been mentioned either in some document or in the written statement that Authority was having the knowledge about substitution of earlier Rules. Keeping in view the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as substituted Rules, it appears that the impugned order has been passed without taking consideration the amended Rules of 2007. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority i.e respondent No.1 to take into consideration the Rules of 2007 and pass necessary order after hearing both the parties. In view thereof, the issue whether approval of the Committee Haryana School Education (Amendment) 2007’) was a condition precedent for dismissal from service against the petitioner, was reconsidered by the Tribunal leading to passing of the impugned judgment challenged by the Management before this Court by filing CWP-8573-2014 Dyal Singh College Trust Society and Managing Committee, Dyal Singh . Educational Tribunal for Educational Institutions at Karnal vide order dated 06.05.2014, with the Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the impugned order, Un-Amended Rules of 2003 as well as Amended Rules of 2007. ed counsel for the petitioner has very fairly admitted that this fact was not brought to the notice of the Appellate Authority. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that it was in the notice of the Appellate Authority while passing the impugned judgment as nothing has been mentioned either in some document or in the written statement that the Appellate Authority was having the knowledge about substitution of earlier Keeping in view the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as substituted Rules, it appears that the impugned order has been passed without taking into consideration the amended Rules of 2007. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority i.e respondent No.1 to take into consideration the Rules of 2007 and pass necessary order whether approval of the Committee Haryana School Education (Amendment) Rules, 2007(for short, was a condition precedent for imposing major punishment of was reconsidered by the Tribunal leading to passing of the impugned judgment, dated 01.12.2018, dismissing 2014 Dyal Singh College Trust Society and Managing Committee, Dyal Singh . Educational Tribunal for Educational Institutions at Karnal , with the ed counsel for the petitioner Amended Rules ed counsel for the petitioner has very fairly admitted notice of the Appellate Authority. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that it Authority while passing the impugned judgment as nothing has been mentioned either in the Appellate Authority was having the knowledge about substitution of earlier Keeping in view the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as substituted Rules, it appears that the into Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority i.e respondent No.1 to take into consideration the Rules of 2007 and pass necessary order whether approval of the Committee Rules, 2007(for short, imposing major punishment of was reconsidered by the Tribunal , dismissing Aman Dua 2025.03.27 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CWP-7032-2019 3. In this background, learned counsel for the petitioner has firstly contended that the order of dismissal is Managing Committee School Rules, Principal is the against an employee that the School is affiliated (CBSE). Accordingly, the petitioner’s conduct needs to be regulated in terms there prescribes the procedure for imposing major penalty, and also stipulates that no order imposing such except after approval of the the petitioner has been taken without approval of such a committee, it is unsustainable. reliance upon Bye Society/Trust/Company registered under Section 1956 will ensure that the school is running as per the provisions of the Education Act and other relevant Acts of Centre/State Governments affiliation norms of CBSE and shall be committed to provide quality education to the children and for this shall take necessary steps as per its needs. the contention, Education and others Rule 162 of the Rules recognized school running under self regulations of their employees in relation to disciplinary committee same cannot be considered to have been 2019 -4- In this background, learned counsel for the petitioner has firstly contended that the order of dismissal is per se Managing Committee had no authority to pass chool Rules, Principal is the competent authority to take disciplinary action employee, and not the Chairman. Secondly chool is affiliated to the Central Board of (CBSE). Accordingly, the CBSE Affiliation Bye the petitioner’s conduct needs to be regulated in terms there prescribes the procedure for imposing major penalty, and also stipulates that imposing such a penalty shall be passed approval of the committee. Since the disciplinary action against oner has been taken without approval of such a committee, it is unsustainable. The Bye-laws have a force of law reliance upon Bye-law 19(2), which is to the following effect Society/Trust/Company registered under Section 1956 will ensure that the school is running as per the provisions of the Education Act and other relevant Acts of Centre/State Governments affiliation norms of CBSE and shall be committed to provide quality education to the en and for this shall take necessary steps as per its needs. contention, he has referred to Jigya Yadav Education and others, (2021) 7 SCC 535. Thirdly the Rules of 2007 requires that recognized school running under self-finance scheme shall frame rules and regulations of their employees in relation to service conditions disciplinary committee, etc.’ Since the School Rules same cannot be considered to have been framed In this background, learned counsel for the petitioner has firstly per se illegal as Chairman of the authority to pass this order. In terms of the uthority to take disciplinary action Secondly, it has been contended the Central Board of Secondary Education Bye-laws will be applicable, and the petitioner’s conduct needs to be regulated in terms therewith. Bye-law 47 prescribes the procedure for imposing major penalty, and also stipulates that passed by the disciplinary authority Since the disciplinary action against oner has been taken without approval of such a committee, it is laws have a force of law; in this regard he has placed , which is to the following effect, “The Society/Trust/Company registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 will ensure that the school is running as per the provisions of the Education Act and other relevant Acts of Centre/State Governments affiliation norms of CBSE and shall be committed to provide quality education to the en and for this shall take necessary steps as per its needs.” In support of Jigya Yadav v. Central Board of Secondary Thirdly, it has been contended that that ‘every managing committee of finance scheme shall frame rules and service conditions, constitution of Since the School Rules are of the year 2000, the framed in terms of the subsequently In this background, learned counsel for the petitioner has firstly Chairman of the . In terms of the uthority to take disciplinary action , it has been contended Education , and law 47 prescribes the procedure for imposing major penalty, and also stipulates that by the disciplinary authority Since the disciplinary action against oner has been taken without approval of such a committee, it is placed The 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 will ensure that the school is running as per the provisions of the Education Act and other relevant Acts of Centre/State Governments affiliation norms of CBSE and shall be committed to provide quality education to the In support of . Central Board of Secondary it has been contended that every managing committee of finance scheme shall frame rules and of are of the year 2000, the y Aman Dua 2025.03.27 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CWP-7032-2019 notified Rules of 2007 under the former 4. Learned senior counsel for contrary, contends that the impugned judgment passed after considering therein. He furthe laws clearly stipulate the employees concerned; the Bye 1. frame Service Rules for its employees which will be as per Education Act of the same obligatory, otherwise as per Service Rules given in subsequent sections. He has further the petitioner regarding competence of the Chairman to pass the order of dismissal is also Management in its meeting dated the staff were amended Rule reads as under (A) Powers and Functions of Chairman o Committee: (i (vii disciplinary action employees Discipline Rules 2019 -5- Rules of 2007, and resultantly the former Rules are illegal. Learned senior counsel for respondents no.1, 3 and 4 contrary, contends that the impugned judgment passed after considering every argument raised by the petitioner herein. He further contends that Bye-law 24 of the clearly stipulate that each affiliated school the employees, which would be as per Education Act of the Bye-law reads as under: 1. Each school affiliated/to be affiliated with the Board shall frame Service Rules for its employees which will be as per Education Act of the State/U.T., if the Act same obligatory, otherwise as per Service Rules given in subsequent sections. further been contended that the objection taken by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding competence of the Chairman to pass the order of dismissal is also wrong, since the School Rules were amended by the Management in its meeting dated 21.03.2002 were vested with Chairman of the Management Committee. The amended Rule reads as under; (A) Powers and Functions of Chairman o Committee:- i) to (vii) xxx xxx (viii) Disciplinary Powers:- He shall exercise powers to take disciplinary action against staff as per Dyal Sing employees Discipline Rules. the enquiry proceedings conducted respondents no.1, 3 and 4, on the contrary, contends that the impugned judgment is well reasoned and has been every argument raised by the petitioner/appellant law 24 of the CBSE Affiliation Bye- school shall frame its own Rules for be as per Education Act of the State/UT Each school affiliated/to be affiliated with the Board shall frame Service Rules for its employees which will be as per , if the Act makes adoption of the same obligatory, otherwise as per Service Rules given in contended that the objection taken by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding competence of the Chairman to pass the order of , since the School Rules were amended by the and disciplinary powers against Chairman of the Management Committee. The (A) Powers and Functions of Chairman of the School Managing xxx He shall exercise powers to take against staff as per Dyal Singh Public School proceedings conducted , on the has been /appellant - shall frame its own Rules for State/UT Each school affiliated/to be affiliated with the Board shall frame Service Rules for its employees which will be as per of the same obligatory, otherwise as per Service Rules given in contended that the objection taken by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding competence of the Chairman to pass the order of , since the School Rules were amended by the disciplinary powers against Chairman of the Management Committee. The f the School Managing He shall exercise powers to take Public School Aman Dua 2025.03.27 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CWP-7032-2019 5. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered. 6. The first contention of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding competence of the Chairman to pass the order of dismissal is without substance, since the Bye amendment carried out on 21.03.2002, vesting the Chairman with the power to take disciplinary action against the employees. 7. Secondly CBSE Bye-laws been raised on the basis of that the school is running as per the provisions of the Education Act and other relevant Acts of Centre/State Governments affiliation norms of stipulation evidently is that the School is to be run as per provisions of the Central or the the affiliating bodies affiliated/to be affiliated employees which will be as per Education Act of the State/U makes adoption in subsequent sections Education Act mandatory for the Management, to frame service rules for its employees and the School Rules 2000 have been Bye-laws will apply to the petitioner’s case. 8. Lastly, the Management cannot be termed valid 2019 -6- Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been The first contention of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding competence of the Chairman to pass the order of dismissal is without substance, since the Bye-laws stand am amendment carried out on 21.03.2002, vesting the Chairman with the power to take disciplinary action against the employees. Secondly, the argument concerning laws to regulate the disciplinary matter been raised on the basis of Bye-law 19(2), that ‘the School that the school is running as per the provisions of the Education Act and other relevant Acts of Centre/State Governments affiliation norms of stipulation evidently is that the School is to be run as per provisions of the the State Acts, as the case may be, the affiliating bodies. Further, Bye-law 24 clearly provides be affiliated with the Board shall frame Service Rules for its employees which will be as per Education Act of the State/U makes adoption of the same obligatory, otherwise as per Service Rules given in subsequent sections.” There is no disp Education Act, 1995 and the Rules of 2007 mandatory for the private educational bodies, like the respondent , to frame service rules for its employees and the School Rules 2000 have been so framed. Therefore, there is no basis to contend that CBSE laws will apply to the petitioner’s case. Lastly, the argument that the cannot be termed valid in the light of requirements Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been The first contention of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding competence of the Chairman to pass the order of dismissal is laws stand amended by a subsequent amendment carried out on 21.03.2002, vesting the Chairman with the power to take disciplinary action against the employees. concerning mandatory application of matters, is misconceived. It has that ‘the School Society will ensure that the school is running as per the provisions of the Education Act and other relevant Acts of Centre/State Governments affiliation norms of CBSE…’ The stipulation evidently is that the School is to be run as per provisions of the State Acts, as the case may be, as also the norms laid down by clearly provides, “Each school with the Board shall frame Service Rules for its employees which will be as per Education Act of the State/U.T., if the Act the same obligatory, otherwise as per Service Rules given There is no dispute that the Haryana School and the Rules of 2007 framed thereunder make it private educational bodies, like the respondent , to frame service rules for its employees and the School Rules Therefore, there is no basis to contend that CBSE the School Rules framed by the the light of requirements of Rule 162 Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been The first contention of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding competence of the Chairman to pass the order of dismissal is ended by a subsequent amendment carried out on 21.03.2002, vesting the Chairman with the power mandatory application of It has Society will ensure that the school is running as per the provisions of the Education Act and other …’ The stipulation evidently is that the School is to be run as per provisions of the norms laid down by Each school with the Board shall frame Service Rules for its , if the Act the same obligatory, otherwise as per Service Rules given School make it private educational bodies, like the respondent , to frame service rules for its employees and the School Rules Therefore, there is no basis to contend that CBSE School Rules framed by the of Rule 162 Aman Dua 2025.03.27 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CWP-7032-2019 of the Rules of 2007 rejected after due consideration 21. requirement of supplying copies of rules and by the school is at the stage of moving an application for recognition. As discussed above, the respondent already recognized before the doubt that by virtue of sub such school had to obtain Government so as to be deemed to have been recognized under the Act. However, there was no condition either in the statute or rules that they were under obligation to supply rules an regulations framed by them to the department at that stage. Therefore, the rules framed by the school hold the ground. 22. own rules known as Dyal Singh Public School Employees (Service before the Education Rules, 2003 were framed. The School Rules were applicable till 2003 when the same were eclipsed by Education Rules 2003. However, the shadow was removed in 2007 when Rules 163 to 185 of t omitted. Therefore, the School Rules became free from infirm Needless to say that the doctrine of eclipse can be invoked in such cases where law/rules were valid when the same were enacted/framed but shadow was cast by supe namely, inconsistency with statute/Rule which came into existence subsequently. This is precisely what happened in this case. It is reiterated that when the respondent Rules in 2000, there were no Rules of 2003. Therefore, the framed by the school were valid. However, shadow was cast by Rules of 2003 which came into being subsequently. The Rules framed by the school were rendered dormant. However, after the amendment of the Rules of 2003, the shadow was removed. 2019 -7- the Rules of 2007, was raised before the Tribunal rejected after due consideration with the following observations: 21. To my mind, there is no merit in the contentions. The requirement of supplying copies of rules and by the school is at the stage of moving an application for recognition. As discussed above, the respondent already recognized before the Rules of 2003 came into being. No doubt that by virtue of sub-Section 6 of Section 4 of t such school had to obtain ‘No Objection Certificate Government so as to be deemed to have been recognized under the Act. However, there was no condition either in the statute or rules that they were under obligation to supply rules an regulations framed by them to the department at that stage. Therefore, the rules framed by the school hold the ground. 22. The fact remains that the respondent school already had its own rules known as Dyal Singh Public School Employees (Service, Recruitment, Conduct and Discipline) Rules, 2000 even before the Education Rules, 2003 were framed. The School Rules were applicable till 2003 when the same were eclipsed by Education Rules 2003. However, the shadow was removed in 2007 when Rules 163 to 185 of t omitted. Therefore, the School Rules became free from infirm Needless to say that the doctrine of eclipse can be invoked in such cases where law/rules were valid when the same were enacted/framed but shadow was cast by supe namely, inconsistency with statute/Rule which came into existence subsequently. This is precisely what happened in this case. It is reiterated that when the respondent Rules in 2000, there were no Rules of 2003. Therefore, the framed by the school were valid. However, shadow was cast by Rules of 2003 which came into being subsequently. The Rules framed by the school were rendered dormant. However, after the amendment of the Rules of 2003, the shadow was removed. raised before the Tribunal also, and already stands the following observations: To my mind, there is no merit in the contentions. The requirement of supplying copies of rules and regulations framed by the school is at the stage of moving an application for recognition. As discussed above, the respondent-school was Rules of 2003 came into being. No Section 6 of Section 4 of the Act 1995 No Objection Certificate’ from the Government so as to be deemed to have been recognized under the Act. However, there was no condition either in the statute or rules that they were under obligation to supply rules and regulations framed by them to the department at that stage. Therefore, the rules framed by the school hold the ground. The fact remains that the respondent school already had its own rules known as Dyal Singh Public School Employees tment, Conduct and Discipline) Rules, 2000 even before the Education Rules, 2003 were framed. The School Rules were applicable till 2003 when the same were eclipsed by Education Rules 2003. However, the shadow was removed in 2007 when Rules 163 to 185 of the Education Rules 2003 were omitted. Therefore, the School Rules became free from infirmity. Needless to say that the doctrine of eclipse can be invoked in such cases where law/rules were valid when the same were enacted/framed but shadow was cast by supervening event, namely, inconsistency with statute/Rule which came into existence subsequently. This is precisely what happened in this case. It is reiterated that when the respondent-school framed Rules in 2000, there were no Rules of 2003. Therefore, the Rules framed by the school were valid. However, shadow was cast by Rules of 2003 which came into being subsequently. The Rules framed by the school were rendered dormant. However, after the amendment of the Rules of 2003, the shadow was removed. stands To my mind, there is no merit in the contentions. The regulations framed by the school is at the stage of moving an application for school was Rules of 2003 came into being. No he Act 1995 from the Government so as to be deemed to have been recognized under the Act. However, there was no condition either in the statute or d regulations framed by them to the department at that stage. The fact remains that the respondent school already had its own rules known as Dyal Singh Public School Employees tment, Conduct and Discipline) Rules, 2000 even before the Education Rules, 2003 were framed. The School Rules were applicable till 2003 when the same were eclipsed by Education Rules 2003. However, the shadow was removed in he Education Rules 2003 were y. Needless to say that the doctrine of eclipse can be invoked in such cases where law/rules were valid when the same were rvening event, namely, inconsistency with statute/Rule which came into existence subsequently. This is precisely what happened in this school framed Rules framed by the school were valid. However, shadow was cast by Rules of 2003 which came into being subsequently. The Rules framed by the school were rendered dormant. However, after the amendment of the Rules of 2003, the shadow was removed. Aman Dua 2025.03.27 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CWP-7032-2019 Therefore, back to life. This Court finds no valid reason to differ with the reasoning recorded by the Tribunal. The order with the provisions of the School procedure has been followed before taking disciplinary actio afforded due opportunity of hearing and the order is based upon due consideration of relevant facts of the case, including the response to t cause notice as well as findings of the enquiry officer. 9. Further, t CBSE Examin all legal purposes this Court was by the CBSE corrections. Th did not concern CBSE. Beside School Rules regulate servi Accordingly, r 10. In view the stands dismissed. 17.03.2025 Ad 2019 -8- Therefore, rules framed by the school became free and came back to life. This Court finds no valid reason to differ with the reasoning recorded by the The order of dismissal against the petitioner with the provisions of the School Rules, and it has not been disputed that due procedure has been followed before taking disciplinary actio afforded due opportunity of hearing and the order is based upon due consideration of relevant facts of the case, including the response to t cause notice as well as findings of the enquiry officer. Further, the judgment in Jigya Yadav nation Bye-laws operate as law and purposes, has no application to the facts of s correction/modification of nam E, and validity of the Bye-law he observations by the Court w n conditions of service of emplo es, in the instant case, the Ma in line with the statutory mand ice conditions and disciplinar reliance upon the judgment is misconceived In view the discussion, there is no merit in the petition and it stands dismissed. Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable rules framed by the school became free and came This Court finds no valid reason to differ with the reasoning recorded by the of dismissal against the petitioner has been passed in line Rules, and it has not been disputed that due procedure has been followed before taking disciplinary action. She was afforded due opportunity of hearing and the order is based upon due consideration of relevant facts of the case, including the response to the show cause notice as well as findings of the enquiry officer. Jigya Yadav case, holding that the and must be regarded as such for has no application to the facts of this case. The issue before me recorded in marksheets issued w restricting the scope of such were made in this context which oyees of a school affiliated to the anagement has framed its own date of the Act of 1995 which ry matters of the employees. misconceived. there is no merit in the petition and it (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No rules framed by the school became free and came This Court finds no valid reason to differ with the reasoning recorded by the has been passed in line Rules, and it has not been disputed that due . She was afforded due opportunity of hearing and the order is based upon due he show the for e d h h e n h . there is no merit in the petition and it ) Aman Dua 2025.03.27 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document