Section 8(4) of the Act provides that no employee of a recognized private school shall be suspended without the prior approval of the Director of Education (DOE). This is however subject to the stipulation in the first proviso to Section 8(4), which empowers the Managing Committee to suspend an employee with immediate effect, without obtaining the prior approval of the DOE, if it is satisfied that such an immediate suspension is necessitated by reason of the gross misconduct of the employee.

  The second Proviso to Section 8(4) prescribes that no such immediate suspension shall remain in force beyond a period of fifteen days from unless and until the same is approved by the DOE before the expiry of the said period.

FACTS:

Petitioner, a teacher in a private unaided school (Ravindra Public School), was suspended from service on account of an imminent necessity due to reason of gross misconduct.

Petitioner contended that the Suspension order has been passed in violation of Section 8(4) of the DSEA & R as no approval from the DOE had been taken prior to suspension or with a period of 15 days from the date of actual suspension. Respondent School sought to defend the suspension order by contending that the provisions of Section 8(4) of DSEA&R do not apply to private unaided educational institutions.

FINDINGS:                        

1. Court held that in the absence of approval by DOE the order of immediate suspension lapsed after the expiry of fifteen days and Relying on Anand       Dev    Tyagi      Lt. Governor of Delhi, 1996 SCC Online Del 537, the Court reiterated that approval by DOE before the expiry of 15 days is a sine qua non for the period of suspension to remain in force beyond 15 days. On approval not being granted the suspension ceases to be operative.

2. Further, relying on Raj Kumar vs. Director of Education and Ors., (2016)6 SCC    541     and     Katra Education Society v. the State of U.P., AIR 1966 SC 1307 and keeping in view the laudable object behind enactment of provision such as Section 8(4), the Court rejected the Respondent’s contention that Section 8(4) does not apply to private unaided educational institutions. The court observed that service conditions of employees of privately recognized schools can be regulated by educational authorities and thus Legislations can be made to that effect.