Court’s Decision: The Delhi High Court quashed and set aside orders of the Single Judge dismissing a writ petition by a teacher challenging termination from a school, ruling that the petitioner retains the right to either appeal to the Delhi School Tribunal (DST) or pursue a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the Single Judge’s preemptive dismissal of the petition as non-maintainable deprived the petitioner of the choice of remedy, even though the Supreme Court’s precedent allows for a writ petition irrespective of the availability of alternative remedies. The Court remanded the matter to enable the petitioner to challenge the termination.
Facts: The appellant, a teacher, had filed a writ petition contesting his termination by the school’s Disciplinary Committee, which he alleged was arbitrarily constituted and its proceedings vitiated. His primary contentions centered around violations of the Delhi School Education Rules and procedural irregularities in the disciplinary actions against him. Upon disposal of the writ petition by the Single Judge, a review petition was also dismissed.
Issues:
- Whether the writ petition challenging the termination order is maintainable despite the statutory alternative remedy of appeal to the DST.
- Whether the Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition on grounds of non-maintainability without allowing the petitioner to pursue an appeal.
Petitioner’s Arguments: The petitioner contended that the Disciplinary Committee was illegally constituted and that the inquiry process was flawed, warranting intervention by the High Court under Article 226. He argued that his right to challenge the termination through a writ petition should not be curtailed solely on the grounds of an alternative remedy being available.
Respondent’s Arguments: The respondents asserted that the petitioner’s writ petition was non-maintainable, contending that the petitioner should seek recourse with the DST as the prescribed appellate authority under the Delhi School Education Act. They relied on precedents suggesting that a writ petition should be avoided when an efficacious alternative remedy exists.
Analysis of the Law: The Court reviewed the relevant legal framework, noting that while Article 226 provides broad discretionary power to entertain writ petitions, this power is typically exercised with caution when statutory remedies are available. The Court drew upon precedents, including Shashi Gaur v. NCT, which upheld the maintainability of writ petitions challenging termination despite the presence of alternative statutory appeals.
Precedent Analysis: The Court referenced the Supreme Court’s judgment in Shashi Gaur v. NCT and Godrej Sara Lee v. Excise and Taxation Officer, reiterating that the presence of an alternative remedy does not strip the High Court of its jurisdiction under Article 226. Rather, it remains at the Court’s discretion to determine whether the case merits its intervention.
Court’s Reasoning: The Court held that the Single Judge’s premature dismissal of the writ petition, before the petitioner was even served with a termination order, was improper. It noted that the appellant had not been given a fair opportunity to select his preferred remedy, as the termination order had not yet been communicated to him. The Court underscored that such a dismissal, without adequate reasoning, went against established judicial discretion granted by Article 226.
Conclusion: The High Court allowed the appeal, restoring the petitioner’s right to choose his remedy. The petitioner is now free to either appeal to the DST or pursue the writ petition in the High Court, where the Single Judge may consider its merits or relegate him to the DST if deemed appropriate.
Implications: The decision underscores the High Court’s discretion under Article 226, reinforcing that statutory remedies do not automatically preclude writ jurisdiction. This ruling will serve as guidance for future cases involving employee termination in educational institutions, reaffirming the petitioner’s right to select a remedy based on the merits of their case.
