$~90 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9629/2026 & CM APPLs. 44928-44931/2026 MS. AQSA AZEEM .....Petitioner Through: Md. Azam Ansari, Ms. Azeema and Mr. Afjal Ansari, Advocates. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Ms. Jaya Goyal, Advocate for R-5,6 and 7. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 20.07.2026 1. This writ petition impugns communication dated 26th May, 2026, issued by the Respondent School, whereby the Petitioner’s services were discontinued with effect from 31st May, 2026. The Petitioner also seeks reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits, including arrears of salary and other service benefits. 2. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was appointed as a teacher with the Respondent School and joined her duties on 1st April, 2026. It is submitted that although the Petitioner continuously discharged her duties, no appointment letter or document governing the terms and conditions of her service was ever issued to her. It is further submitted that the Petitioner was paid a lesser salary than what had been agreed upon at the time of her appointment and was thereafter required by the Respondent This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/07/2026 at 12:22:39 School to return 40% of the salary credited to her bank account in cash, which she refused. Despite repeated requests, the Respondent School failed to furnish details regarding her appointment, salary structure, provident fund, leave policy and other service-related particulars. 3. It is further contended that upon the Petitioner seeking disclosure of the aforementioned documents by way of an email dated 26th May, 2026, the Respondent School, within a few hours thereof, issued the impugned communication discontinuing her services on the ground of “unsatisfactory teaching performance”. Counsel submits that the impugned action is arbitrary and has been taken without compliance with the mandatory safeguards contemplated under Section 8 of the Delhi School Education Act, 19731. 4. This Court is of the opinion that the controversy raised in the present petition pertains to the legality of the discontinuation of the Petitioner’s services by a recognised private school. The grievance is founded on the alleged non-compliance with the provisions of the DSE Act and would necessarily require examination of the Petitioner’s service conditions, the nature of her appointment and the applicability of the statutory safeguards under Section 8 thereof. These are matters which fall within the jurisdiction of the Delhi School Tribunal constituted under the Act. 5. Section 8(3) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 provides a statutory remedy of appeal to an employee aggrieved by an order of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank before the Delhi School Tribunal, constituted under Section 11 of the Act. The principles governing the exercise of writ jurisdiction where such a statutory remedy is available are This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/07/2026 at 12:22:39 well settled. Although the availability of an alternative remedy does not oust the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, yet this Court must, in the exercise of its discretion, decline to entertain this writ petition as the Petitioner can easily avail the statutory remedy. In Shashi Gaur v. NCT of Delhi,2 while considering the termination of the services of a teacher of a recognised private school, the Supreme Court found no infirmity in the decision of this Court to decline interference under Article 226 and relegate the employee to the statutory remedy before the Delhi School Tribunal. In view thereof, this Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner ought to avail the statutory remedy before the DST at the first instance. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to avail the remedy available under the DSE Act before the DST, in accordance with law. 7. This Court has not examined the merits of the Petitioner’s allegations, and all rights and contentions of the parties are left open. 8. Disposed of along with pending application. SANJEEV NARULA, J JULY 20, 2026/hc 1 “DSE Act” 2 (2001) 10 SCC 445. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/07/2026 at 12:22:39