MR VINOD KUMAR SORAN  Vs DELHI PUBLICE SCHOOL AND ORS

LPA 26/2021 Pag e 1 of 11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of decision: 21 st January, 2021.

+ LPA 26/2021 and CM Nos. 2198/2021 (for stay), 2199/ 2021 (for
condonation of 17 days delay in re-filing the appea l)

VINOD KUMAR SORAN ….. Appellant
Through: Mr. Manish Kumar Choudhary, Adv

versus

DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ORS ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Puneet Mittal, Sr. Adv with Ms.
Vasudha Bajaj and Mr. Abheisumat
Gupta, Advs for R-1 & 2
Mr. Gaurav Dhingra, Adv for R-3 /
Directorate of Education
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J .
1. The appeal impugns (i) the order dated 14 th February, 2020 of the
Single Judge, dismissing W.P.(C) 1723/2020 preferre d by the appellant as
withdrawn, with liberty to the appellant to initiat e such other actions as may
be available to the appellant in accordance with la w; and, (ii) the order
dated 16 th March, 2020, of dismissal of CM No. 9938/2020, fil ed by the
appellant/writ petitioner before the Single Judge f or recall of the order
dated 14 th February, 2020, and seeks consideration of the wri t petition on
merits.
2. The senior counsel for the respondents No. 1 & 2 Delhi Public
School and Delhi Public School Society and the coun sel for respondent No.
2021:DHC:236-DB
LPA 26/2021 Pag e 2 of 11
3 Directorate of Education Delhi, appear on advance notice.
3. The appellant, a teacher in the subject of Mathe matics in the
respondent No. 1 Delhi Public School, R.K. Puram, N ew Delhi, who
superannuated from the said school on attaining the age of 60 years on 30 th
September, 2019, filed the writ petition from order s wherein this appeal
arises, impugning the office order dated 16 th September, 2019 of the
respondent No. 1 School of superannuation of the pe titioner as well as the
Minutes of Meeting held on 12 th September, 2019 of the Screening
Committee of respondent No. 1 School, finding the a ppellant not deserving
of re-employment after attaining the age of superan nuation i.e., 60 years
and not recommending the appellant for re-employmen t. Consequent
direction to the respondents No. 1 and 2 to grant e xtension of service/re-
employment to the appellant for two years, with eff ect from 30 th September,
2019, was also sought. The said writ petition came up first before the
Single Judge on 14 th February, 2020, when the counsel for the appellant ,
during the course of hearing, sought to withdraw th e writ petition as
aforesaid. The appellant thereafter, by engaging a new counsel, filed CM
No. 9938/2020 before the Single Judge, for recall o f the order dismissing
the writ petition as withdrawn, pleading that the S ingle Judge before which
the writ petition had come up for admission, during the course of hearing,
had observed that the writ petition was not maintai nable as it involved
disputed questions of fact which could be decided o nly in a civil suit and it
was the Single Judge who asked the counsel then app earing for the
appellant to withdraw the writ petition and the sai d counsel, left with no
other option, in a hurry withdrew the writ petition without consulting the
appellant. The Single Judge dismissed the said app lication observing, that
2021:DHC:236-DB
LPA 26/2021 Pag e 3 of 11
while according to the new counsel appearing for th e appellant also, the
misconduct in withdrawing the writ petition was on the part of the previous
counsel and no ground for recall of the order was m ade out. Costs of Rs.
20,000/- were also imposed on the appellant for fil ing a misconceived
application for restoration.
4. Though we do not find any error in the impugned orders inasmuch as
litigants, when appear before the Court through law yers are bound by the
actions including decisions taken on the spot by th e lawyers, and without
taking any proceeding against the Advocate, cannot, merely by engaging a
new Advocate, take the plea of being not bound by t he decision of the
action of the earlier lawyer. Reference if any in t his regard may be made to
Salil Dutta v. T.M. and M.C. Private Ltd. (1993) 2 SCC 185, Sukhdev Raj
Arora v. M.K. Bhargava MANU/DE/2756/2010 [SLP (C) No. 4354/2010
preferred whereagainst was dismissed on 19 th February, 2010], Mohit v.
Ram Pyari MANU/DE/0288/2016 and Ashwani Sharma v. Kanta Sharma
MANU/DE/0160/2017 [RFA(OS) 12/2017 preferred wherea gainst was
dismissed on 9 th March, 2017].
5. We have asked the counsel today appearing for th e appellant,
whether before the Single Judge or along with the a ppeal, any affidavit or
reply of the earlier Advocate who appeared for the appellant on 14 th
February, 2020, was filed.
6. The answer is in the negative.
7. Thus this is also a case of successive Advocates , by blaming the
earlier Advocate and without even checking with the earlier Advocate,
seeking to wriggle out of the outcome of the hearin gs in the presence of the
earlier Advocate and which trend cannot be permitte d, inasmuch as the
2021:DHC:236-DB
LPA 26/2021 Pag e 4 of 11
same results in abuse of the process of the Court. Reference, if any
required, in this regard can be made to Rabi Shanker Sen Gupta v. ITDC
MANU/DE/8419/2007, Gautam Associates v. Food Corporation of India
2009 SCC OnLine Del 2198, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., Delhi v.
Prakash & Co. Construction Company (2013) 197 DLT 772, Harjinder
Pal Singh v. Ravinder Singh Anand 2013 SCC OnLine Del 1045, Mohd.
Hasan v. Farooq @ Fakhruddin 2016 SCC OnLine Del 3490, Samsung
Electronics Company Ltd. v. Gyanji Choudhary 2016 SCC OnLine Del
5098, Tirupati Alkalies Pvt. Ltd. v Vinod Trivedi MANU/DE/5281/2017
and order dated 5 th January, 2021 in Test Cas. No. 54/2014 titled Sanjay
Kalra v. State , where it has been inter alia held that gone are the days when
litigants were illiterates and were solely dependen t upon their Advocates
and the Advocates not so professional. Today, the Advocates, especially in
this capital city of the country, are thorough prof essionals and if such
practice is to be continued, no litigation will eve r come to an end.
8. Be that as it may, to satisfy our judicial consc ience that no wrong has
been done to the appellant by his pleas on merits i n the writ petition
remaining unconsidered, we have asked the counsel f or the appellant to
address us on merits.
9. As aforesaid, the appellant has merely been deni ed re-employment,
post the age of superannuation of 60 years in the r espondent No. 1 School
and which re-employment is guided by the principles contained in
Notifications no. F.30-3(28)/Coord/2006/1689-703 da ted 29 th January, 2007
and F.30-3(28)/Co-Ord/2006/4637-72 dated 28 th February, 2007 of the
respondent No. 3 Directorate of Education. It is a lso not as if the appellant
has not been considered for re-employment for a per iod of 2 years.
2021:DHC:236-DB
LPA 26/2021 Pag e 5 of 11
10. A bare perusal of the impugned Minutes of Meeti ng of the Screening
Committee constituted by respondent No. 1 School sh ows that the
Screening Committee not only considered the re-empl oyment of the
appellant but has also recorded the reasons for not re-employing the
appellant and which reasons are re-produced herein below:-
“3. The Screening Committee scrutinized the service records and
other documents available in the personal file of M r. Vinod
Kumar Soran, P. G.T. Mathematics at D.P.S. R.K. Puram.

(a) The members of the Screening Committee considered the
comments and observations about his work and conduct offered by
the concerned Vice Principal, Dr. Renu Nayar and He ad of the
Department Mathematics, Mr. Anil Kumar.
(b) In their feedback both the concerned Officers, mentioned
that he does not involve himself in any school acti vity other than
the classroom teaching. They further stated that he is unable to
deliver as per the expectations of the students particularly of the
commerce stream. They have further reported that ap art from
teaching he does not show any interest in extra work either for the
Department or for the school. Both the concerned Officers are
not in favour of granting him re-employment after h is attaining
the age of superannuation. The copies of their
comments/observations offered by them were scrutinized
thoroughly by the Screening Committee.
(c) Further, on perusal of his personal file, it is noted that a
number of complaints have been received against him concerning
his behaviour with special reference to the inciden t dated 18 th
December, 2008, when he was found in a drunk condit ion. In
another incident dated 24 th September, 2018, he was found
smoking near the pump area (behind the girl’s hoste l) during
working hours in the school.
(d) A letter dated 6 th June, 2006 addressed to Chairman, D.P.S.
Society by the then Principal, Mrs. S. Chona, stati ng that Mr.
Soran is a problematic person and his performance i s not upto
the D.P.S. Standard was also taken into consideration by the
Screening Committee.
2021:DHC:236-DB
LPA 26/2021 Pag e 6 of 11
(e) The members of the Screening Committee also scrutinized
various complaints received from the students about his teaching
methodology. The brief details about the complaints are as
under:

(i) On 22.8.2019 students of Class XI Q gave a complaint
against Mr. Vinod Kumar Soran that they are not able to
understand the concepts of subject (Maths) and when
students request Mr.Vinod Kumar Soran to explain th e topic
again, then Mr.Vinod Kumar Soran gets irritated, sc olds
them and when the exams are approaching he rushes with
the course, making it difficult for the students to cop e up
with the subject.
(ii) A complaint from the Class-XI E students mentioning
that Mr. Vinod Kumar Soran is short tempered, passe s
personal comments about parents of students, scolds them
for raising queries in the class, does not answer t o the
queries of the students, etc.
(iii) On 3.5.2019 students of 11 th class submitted a
complaint that extra Maths class conducted by Mr. V inod
Kumar Soran was of no help as they got more confuse d
and therefore requested for an extra class with som e other
Maths teacher.
(iv) On 15.7.2014 a complaint was received from Mr.
Sanjay Talwar that students of class XII-U are not at all
satisfied with the teaching style of Mr. Vinod Kuma r
Soran.
(v) On 17.4.2008 students of class XII -K wrote a letter
requesting for a change of their Maths Teacher , Mr. Vinod
Kumar Soran, as they were not satisfied with his
teaching method, he loses his temper very quickly a nd
ignores the queries/doubts raised by students.
(vi) On 17.8.2006 principal received a complaint fr om a
parent of a student of 11 th class requesting a change of
Maths Teacher as the students started losing the interest in
the Maths subject because of the behaviour of Mr. Vinod
Kumar Soran, who narrated stories and Urdu poetry in
class.
(f) Reports on Monitors Meetings with Rep 1 st August, 2017, 30 th
July, 2018, 9 th November, 2018, 18 th July, 20I9, 20 th August, 2019
2021:DHC:236-DB
LPA 26/2021 Pag e 7 of 11
and previous years regarding the student’s dissatis faction with his
teaching.
(g) A letter dated 11 th September, 2019 addressed to the Chairman,
D.P.S. Society and M.C. D.P.S. R .K. Puram submitting a report
regarding the intolerable behaviour of Mr. Vinod Ku mar Soran,
P.G.T Maths.”

11. The counsel for the appellant has argued, (i) t hat the appellant was
not given a proper consideration for the reason tha t two of the four
members of the Screening Committee had themselves p repared the
comments and observations about the work and conduc t of the appellant;
(ii) that the said members who had prepared the rep ort were thus
disqualified from being members of the Screening Co mmittee and the
appellant has not been given due consideration for re-employment; (iii) that
none of the misconducts/actions, for the reason whe reof the appellant has
been denied re-employment, were ever communicated t o the appellant at
the contemporaneous time and did not form part of t he Annual Confidential
Report of the appellant inasmuch as the same would have constituted
adverse remarks and would have been communicated to the appellant; (iv)
that even if the appellant was guilty of the afores aid actions/misconduct
alleged, the same stood condoned by no action or di sciplinary proceedings
having been taken against the appellant with respec t thereto; and, (v) that
the appellant, in response to the Minutes of Meetin g aforesaid of the
Screening Committee, explained each and every of th e aforesaid
conduct/actions and allegations in which regard sta nd falsified from the said
reply and annexures thereto.
12. We have however asked the counsel for the appel lant, whether not
under the law the appellant has only a right of con sideration and not any
2021:DHC:236-DB
LPA 26/2021 Pag e 8 of 11
right to re-employment under the aforesaid Notifica tions. We have also
enquired from the counsel for the appellant, whethe r not the matter is not
res integra and stands covered by a large number of decisions of this Court.
13. The counsel for the appellant then seeks adjour nment, to address us
on the question of law.
14. The same cannot be permitted. The procedure of law does not
prescribe for the counsel to come prepared on the d ate of admission, only
on facts and not on law and to have yet another hea ring for addressing the
Court on a question of law. This is especially so in the present case where
the earlier counsel who appeared for the appellant on 14 th February, 2020 is
being blamed for his negligence in adequately prepa ring for the case.
15. Be that as it may, the senior counsel for respo ndents No. 1 and 2 has
shared on the screen with us, some of the judgments on the said aspect and
has also emailed all the said judgments to us.
16. We find the Division Bench of this Court in Shashi Kohli Vs.
Director of Education 2012 SCC OnLine Del 1848 (DB) to have held (a)
that unnecessary interference with the management a nd functioning of
unaided schools is not permissible; (b) the notific ations aforesaid only
enable the schools to re-employee the teachers and cannot be treated as
conferring any rights on the teachers to continue i n employment till the age
of 62 years; (c) the schools cannot be compelled to retain the teachers who
inspite of long span are found not to be the best i n the field, for another two
years; (d) the said notifications ought to be read as incentives to the
teachers for improving their performance if desirou s of availing the
extension so allowed to the schools; (e) if the not ifications are to be read as
conferring a right to the teachers, the same is lik ely to affect the standards
2021:DHC:236-DB
LPA 26/2021 Pag e 9 of 11
of teaching and which ought not to be encouraged; ( f) the benefit of
notifications is intended for those who have the po tential for continued
useful service to the institution; (g) non-grant of re-employment does not
cast any stigma; and, (h) the notifications are not intended to force upon the
educational institutions, teachers who are worthles s and who have lost their
utility and who are standing in the way of fresh bl ood being inducted into
the institution. Reference may also be made to Manohar Lal Vs. Govt. of
NCT of Delhi (2015) 219 DLT 140 (DB), Chander Prabha Sood Vs.
Directorate of Education (2011) 179 DLT 486, Shashi Kohli Vs.
Directorate of Education (2011) 179 DLT 440 & Chandana
Bandyopadhyay Vs. Shyama Prasad Vidyalaya Sr. Secon dary School
2013 SCC OnLine Del 4313.
17. It follows from the aforesaid judgments that a teacher in a recognised
School within the meaning of the Delhi School Educa tion Act, 1973,
merely has a right of consideration for re-employme nt beyond the age of
superannuation of 60 years and cannot claim re-empl oyment as a matter of
right.
18. As far as the arguments of the counsel for the appellant are
concerned, we are of the view that even if the reas ons considered by the
Screening Committee had remained non-actionable and are stale and are
disputed by the teacher who has been denied the re- employment, the law
does not prescribe for any enquiry to be held at th is stage like a disciplinary
proceedings , for adjudication of the said reasons. A School, unlike an
industry, cannot be expected to take disciplinary p roceedings against its
staff members for each and every misconduct; moreov er, a School which is
to impart education to youngsters has to act respon sibly and if the
2021:DHC:236-DB
LPA 26/2021 Pag e 10 of 11
Screening Committee of the School constituted to co nsider the aspect of the
re-employment of teachers is of the opinion that a particular teacher would
not fit into the overall scheme and objective of Sc hool and be not able to
contribute to the objectives in the School, the Sch ool, even though may
have tolerated the said teacher for long, is fully entitled to, at this stage, get
rid of the teacher and not continue to suffer the t eacher for another two
years. This is not to say that if a proven case of mala fide is made out, even
then the decision the Screening Committee would be binding. If in any
particular case there is sufficient material before the Court, of the decision
not to re-employ being mala fide , the Courts would certainly be entitled to
interfere but no enquiry to prove the reasons can b e provided at the said
stage; it cannot be lost sight of that re-employmen t is for a period of two
years only and if any enquiry, appeals, etc., were to be carried out at that
stage, most of the period of two years would also b e taken therein and the
teacher, instead of contributing to educating child ren, would be involved in
the said disciplinary proceedings only.
19. Though the counsel for the appellant has conten ded that the
respondent No. 1 School is vindictive to the appell ant for the reason of the
appellant having earlier litigated for implementati on of the Assured Career
Progression Scheme in the respondent No. 1 School b ut we are of the
opinion that from the minutes of the Screening Comm ittee, which
comprised of senior teachers of the School includin g the Head of the
Department of the subject, education wherein the ap pellant was imparting,
no inference of mala fide can be drawn.
20. Our judicial conscience also is thus satisfied that no injustice has
been done to the appellant from non-hearing of his writ petition on merits.
2021:DHC:236-DB
LPA 26/2021 Pag e 11 of 11
21. We may add another aspect. Out of the period of two years for which
the appellant would have been re-employed, 1 year a nd 4 months are
already over, leaving barely 8 more months of the r e-employment sought.
22. No merit is thus found in the appeal.
23. Dismissed.
24. However, we are informed that the appellant suf fers from vision
impairment.
25. The costs of Rs.20,000/- imposed by the Single Judge on the
appellant for dismissal of CM No. 9938/2020, is, in the circumstances,
found to be harsh and is waived of.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

SANJEEV NARULA, J
JANUARY 21, 2021
SU..

2021:DHC:236-DB