Gyan Mandir Society & Anr vs Ashok Kumar & Ors

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.

5. A Single Bench of the High Court allowed the above writ petition by its order dated 20th September, 2007 with the following directions :-

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.

(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/-.

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.