The Delhi High Court has ruled in favor of Jayati Mozumdar, a retired chemistry teacher, directing the Managing Committee of Sri Sathya Sai Vidya Vihar to reinstate her until April 30, 2025, as per the proviso to Rule 110(2) of the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 (DSEAR). The Court also imposed a cost of ₹25,000 on the school for compelling a long-serving teacher to approach the judiciary for a statutorily mandated right.
Background of the Case
Mozumdar, who had been teaching at the respondent school since July 20, 1998, retired upon reaching the age of 60 on November 30, 2024. Under Rule 110(2) of DSEAR, teachers who attain superannuation after November 1 of a given year are entitled to re-employment until April 30 of the following year to prevent mid-academic-year disruptions. Despite this provision, the school denied her request for an extension, forcing her to seek judicial intervention via a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Her petition (W.P.(C) 15997/2024), filed through her counsel Ms. Indrani Ghosh, Ms. Shobhana Takiar, and Mr. Kuljeet Singh, sought re-employment and backdated salary and emoluments for the period post-superannuation. The school, represented by Mr. Sudarshan Rajan, Mr. Amit Anand, and Mr. H. Bajaj, opposed the maintainability of the writ, citing Supreme Court precedents limiting judicial review in private unaided school service matters.
Legal Issues Involved
Maintainability of Writ Petition Against a Private Unaided SchoolThe school cited the Supreme Court’s judgments in St. Mary’s Education Society v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava (2023) and Army Welfare Education Society v. Sunil Kumar Sharma (2024), arguing that private unaided educational institutions are not amenable to writ jurisdiction unless a public law element is involved.
Right to Re-Employment Under DSEARMozumdar contended that her case fell within the exception carved out in St. Mary’s, which permits writ jurisdiction where service conditions are governed by statutory provisions. Given that DSEAR is a statutory regulation, she argued that her employment terms were enforceable through writ jurisdiction.
Court’s Decision
Presiding over the matter, Justice Prateek Jalan upheld the petition’s maintainability, stating:
“If service conditions are governed by statute, and the institution is discharging a public function, a writ would lie against it in respect of such service conditions.”
The Court referred to the Division Bench ruling in Bharat Mata Saraswati Bal Mandir Senior Secondary School v. Vinita Singh (2023), which recognized the applicability of writ jurisdiction in similar circumstances.
Since the school conceded Mozumdar’s entitlement to re-employment under Rule 110(2), the Court issued a categorical directive for her reinstatement with full salary and benefits from December 1, 2024. The arrears are to be paid within four weeks. Furthermore, the Court criticized the school’s resistance, remarking:
“I find it difficult to appreciate that the School has compelled a teacher, who has served in the School for 26 years, to approach the Court for a relief, which the Rules directly mandate.”
The judgment also acknowledged Mozumdar’s pragmatic stance in avoiding further disruption in school operations, as she agreed to resume duties without disturbing current teaching arrangements.
