Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Tribunal and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Delhi School Tribunal: In a set of three appeals, the appellants, Assistant Teachers, challenged their termination order passed by Respondent-School over non-eligibility due to lack of requisite qualification, Satinder Kumar Gautam, Presiding Officer, held that the appellant served for nearly 11 years and the issue pertaining to the requisite qualification was in the knowledge of the respondents, yet in the records, they were shown as regular teachers.
Thus, the Tribunal stated that the appellants’ future had been put on stake and to be paid compensation in lieu of reinstatement against termination was more plausible than to secure employment at an over age and short of requisite qualification. Thus, it ordered the Respondent-School to pay compensation of Rs 5,00,000 to each of the appellants in lieu of reinstatement against the termination
Background
During 2009 and 2011, the appellants were appointed in the Respondent-School, a recognized private school under the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 (‘DSEAR 1973’). Each of them underwent the school’s internal recruitment process, which included interviews and verification of the educational certificates they had submitted with their application forms. Following this, the school confirmed their appointments and treated them as regular and permanent teachers.
The appellants continued to serve uninterruptedly for several years. Their names were included in staff statements, salary registers, and other official documents, and no objections were raised by the management or the Directorate of Education (DOE) regarding the validity of their qualifications during this period.
However, many years after their appointments, the Respondent-School issued notices alleging that the professional qualifications and training certificates possessed by the appellants, such as NTT (Nursery Teacher Training) or CTT (Certificate in Teacher Training), were not issued by recognized or government-affiliated institutions. The Respondent-School referred to DOE circulars that prescribed specific standards for teacher-training programs and asserted that the appellants’ certificates did not satisfy mandatory requirements regarding recognition, duration, or course content.
Based on verification conducted in August 2015, the Respondent-School informed the appellants that the institutions from which they had obtained their teaching qualifications were either unrecognized, unauthorized, or not approved by the competent authority. These notices further indicated that their appointments were liable to be revisited in light of the qualification deficiencies and the rules governing recruitment of teaching staff.
Thereafter, multiple communications, including notices in 2016, 2018, and 2019 were issued, directing the appellants to produce valid, recognized qualifications or to upgrade their professional qualifications in accordance with DOE requirements. The appellants contested these notices, asserting that their documents had already been verified at the time of appointment and that no objections were ever raised earlier.
Ultimately, relying on the DOE’s directives to remove unqualified teachers and citing the alleged invalidity of the appellants’ teaching credentials, the Respondent-school issued termination orders. Aggrieved by it, the appellants approached the Tribunal.
Analysis and Decision
The Tribunal stated that the retrenchment of the appellant from service has been declared bad in law by the Supreme Court and, thus, directed that management re-instate the appellant at the said post.
Considering the respondent’s argument that the appellants’ appointment was contrary to Rules 96 and 100 of the DSEAR, the Tribunal highlighted that they served the Respondent-School for more than 10-11 years and the issue pertaining to the requisite qualification was in the knowledge of the respondents, yet in the records, they were shown as regular teachers.
The Tribunal stated that “The State is responsible for tasks like providing for social security and other needs. The State’s law is responsible for resolving disputes involving human rights and interests. However, societal demands and ideas always come before legal requirements. Therefore, creating harmony between those social ideas and the law already in place becomes vital. Therefore, using equitable principles is necessary to satisfy social expectations and advance the cause of justice.”
The Tribunal, therefore, set aside the termination order and stated that the same did not follow Rules 118 and 120 of the DSEAR 1973 and was violative of natural justice principles. Further, the Tribunal stated that it is well-settled that the reinstatement should be the rule when the order of wrongful dismissal of termination of service was set aside, and the compensation should be an exception.
The Tribunal stated that in the present case, the appellants’ future had been put on stake and to be paid compensation in lieu of reinstatement against termination was more plausible an option than to secure employment at an over age and short of requisite qualification.
The Tribunal stated that the issue involved was what would be the damages which Respondent-School should pay? Further, the Tribunal stated that while calculating the amount of damages to the appellants, the doctrine of pari delicto would come to play because in the case at hand, Respondent-School was guilty of employing in ignorance of DSEAR 1973. Thus, the Tribunal held that instead of awarding lump sum damages and by applying the said doctrine, three months’ salary as damages to be calculated on the basis of last drawn salary. The Tribunal directed the Respondent-School to pay Rs 5,00,000 to each of the appellants in lieu of reinstatement against the termination order withing six months.
[Poonam Singh v. Bapu Public School, Appeal No. 6 of 2021, decided on 21-11-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: V. Sridhar Reddy, Manish Kashyap, Harsh Tikoo, Advocates
For the Respondents: Pramod Gupta and Ashish Sharma, Advocates