Full Judgment Text
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 27 May 2024
Pronounced on: 30 July 2024
+ W.P.(C) 3971/2022 and CM APPL. 11830-31/2022 and
39443/2022
ALL INDIA DRDO LABS SCHOOLS STAFF
ASSOCIATION ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Venkita Subramaniam TR,
Ms. M. Subramaniam and Mr. Rahat Bansal,
Advs
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj,
Adv. Mr. Kushagra Kumar and Mr. Abhinav
Bhardwaj, Advs. for UOI
+ W.P.(C) 7362/2022 and CM APPL. 22515-16/2022,
14588/2023 and 19809/2023
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR PARENTS AND
STUDENTS RIGHTS (NAPSR) AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. R. Sathish and Mr. Rajesh
Kumar, Advocates.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with
Mr. Zubin Singh, Mr. Akash Mishra and
Mr.Yash Yadav, Advocates for UOI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
JUDGMENT
% 29.07.2024
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:22:26
Digitally Signed
By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:21:49
W.P.(C) 3971/2022 & cont. matters Page 1 of 39
The lis
1. The focus of controversy, in both these writ petitions, is a
communication dated 21 December 2021 issued by the Defence
Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), which
communicates, to the Educational Societies managing the affairs of
four schools, the decision of the Competent Authority that, come
2022-2023, there would be no new admissions in any class in the said
schools. The four schools named in the impugned communication are
1
the R & DE (E) English Medium School, Pune , the ITM School,
Mussoorie, the Ballistics Vidyalaya, Chandigarh and the Raksha
2
Anusandhan Vidyalaya, Dehradun . Of these, the ITM School,
Mussoorie was subsequently closed down, and no dispute, therefore,
survives with respect to that school. The operative portion of the
impugned letter may, for the sake of the record, be thus reproduced:
“The Competent Authority has decided that there shall be no new
admissions in the entry level classes as well as in all other classes
for the next Academic Session i.e., 2022-23 in the following
schools: –
(a) R & DE (E) English Medium School, Pune
(b) ITM School, Mussoorie
(c) Ballistics Vidyalaya, Chandigarh
3
(d) Raksha Anusandhan Vidyalaya, Dehradun
This is for your information and further necessary action please.”
(Emphasis as in the original document)
1
“the Pune school” hereinafter
2
Cumulatively referred to as the "subject schools", for the sake of convenience
3
"the Dehradun School" hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:22:26
Digitally Signed
By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:21:49
W.P.(C) 3971/2022 & cont. matters Page 2 of 39
2. On the heels of the above letter, the following communications
were addressed by the Management Committees governing the affairs
of the Dehradun School and the Ballistics Vidyalaya:
(i) On 14 January 2022, the Defence Research Educational
4
Society, Dehradun , which was managing the affairs of the
Dehradun School wrote to the Principal of the School,
intimating that, as per the letter dated 21 December 2021 supra
of the DRDO, there would be no admissions in any classes in
the Dehradun School for the 2022-2023 Academic Session.
(ii) Following a meeting of the Management Committee of
the DRDO Educational Society, Ramgarh, which manages the
affairs of the Ballistics Vidyalaya, the following Circular was
issued with respect to the Academic Session 2022-23:
“ Subject: Regarding Academic Session 2022-23
*
In addition to the instructions given vide S. No. (iv) above,
you are requested to implement the following
1. Ballistics Preparatory Centre is closed.
2. Class IX is closed for academic session 2022-23.
3. All students of Class VIII (session 2021-22) to be
compulsorily given TCs
4. Issue notice to students and parents regarding
starting of school w.e.f. 18 April 2022.
5. Only tuition fees and annual charges to be taken for
the session. Fees to be collected w.e.f. 18 April 2022.
4
“the DRES, Dehradun” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:22:26
Digitally Signed
By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:21:49
W.P.(C) 3971/2022 & cont. matters Page 3 of 39
Annual charges of only three months to be taken during
admissions. Instructions for rest about will be issued later.
6. Annual charges to be submitted to DRDO
Educational Society Fee Account No. 65017688256
7. Fees to be submitted within 20-28 April 2022.
8. Below activities to be followed at the time of
admission:
a.Issue suitable advisory (enclosed) to every
parent/guardian of students from Class I-VIII and
Class X.
b. Take undertaking from every
parent/guardian from Class I-VIII and Class X as
attached before issuing fee booklet.
9. All advisories an undertaking is to be put up in
school website.
10. Strict compliance to the above to be ensured. Fee
booklet an undertaking is to be handed over to undersigned
by 06 May 2022 . In case you are unable to do so, please
provide adequate justification.
11. This has the approval of President, DRDO
Educational Society.”
(Emphasis in original)
3. Also as a sequel to the impugned letter dated 21 December
2021 of the DRDO, the Colonel, Paryojana Prabandhak, Sena, Vayu
Raksha Radar III, Bangalore addressed the following communication
to the Station Commander, Station HQ, Bangalore, on 8 February
2022:
“08 Feb 2022
The Stn Cdr,
Stn HQ, Bengalaru
ADMISSION OF WARDS OF DEF PERS POSTED WITH
VIDYALAYA/ARMY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:22:26
Digitally Signed
By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:21:49
W.P.(C) 3971/2022 & cont. matters Page 4 of 39
1. It is intimated that a policy decision was promulgated in FY
2020-2021 to terminate the central funding of DRDO run project
schools. An effort was made over the last one year to hand over
the running of DRDO aided schools to Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan (KVS), but the mtg of the Committee constituted to
formulate roadmap and timelines for deciding the future of DRDO
aided schools, held in New Delhi on 13 Jan 22, it was decided that:
(a) No central funding for running the DRDO aided schools
will be released by HQ DRDO after 31 Mar 22, and
(b) All the formalities with regard to closure of schools/transfer
of mgt to any local edn society shall be completed by 31 Dec 22.
2. KV, DRDO, CV Raman Nagar, Bengaluru is one such
DRDO aided school, which is likely to see a change in mgt from
KVS to some other private edn society after 31 Mar 22. There are
quite a few wards of Service pers studying in the school, as the
service pers are posted on tenure with the various DRDO labs in
Bengaluru. It is certain that a few students will seek transfer for
the next academic session to continue to be under the aegis of
KVS/AWES.
3. It is requested that the mgt of the APSI KV in the AOR of
the Stn HQ, Bengaluru be advised to accept such intra-city
transfers in the academic session 2022-23.
4. It is also requested that this issue be included as an agenda
in the forthcoming Stn Conf pl.
SD/-THUMP
Copy to
The Principal
KV, CV Raman Nagar
Bengaluru-560093”
Prayers in the writ petitions
4. The prayer clauses in these writ petitions read thus:
(i) In WP (C) 3971/2022
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:22:26
Digitally Signed
By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:21:49
W.P.(C) 3971/2022 & cont. matters Page 5 of 39
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in the
interests of justice, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble
Court may be graciously pleased to:
(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ and quash
the order dated 21.12.2021 issued by the Ministry of Defence,
Government of India directing the for educational societies not to
take admission after 31.03.2022;
(b) Issue a Writ of certiorari or other appropriate Writ to quash
and set aside the decision of the Respondent to stop the grant in
aid which is evident from the communication dated 8.2.2022 of
the Colonel, Paryojaya Prabandhak Sena, Vayu Raksha Radar III,
Bangalore;
(c) Issue a Writ of certiorari or other appropriate Writ to quash
th
and set aside the communication dated 14 January, 2022 issued
by the Defence Research and Educational Society, Dehradun not
to admit students for the academic year 2022-2023;
(d) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ
directing the Respondents to grant all the benefits to the teachers
of the Petitioner Association as is given to the teachers of
Kendriya Vidyalayas on the basis of equality as enshrined in
Article 14 of the Constitution of India;
(e) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ
directing the Respondents not to take any steps for closure of the
DRDO schools in the final decision is taken after hearing all the
stakeholders; and
(f) Pass any other order or orders or writ or direction that this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of
the case.”
(ii) In WP (C) 7362/2022
“In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in the
interest of justice, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble
Court may be graciously pleased to:
(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or
direction calling for the records leading to the issuance of the
th
order dated 21.12.2021 issued by the 4 Resp. Directorate of
Management Service, Ministry of Defence, Government of India,
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:22:26
Digitally Signed
By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:21:49
W.P.(C) 3971/2022 & cont. matters Page 6 of 39
directing the for educational societies not to take new admission
in the entry level classes as well as in all other classes for the next
academic session 2022-2023 and to quash the same being
violative of Art. 14, Art. 21-A of the Constitution of India;
(b) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ to quash
ION dt. 12.4.2022 (Annexure P-2) issued by the Ballistic
Vidyalaya Management Committee to close down the preparatory
centre, class IX or academic session 2022-2023 and further
direction to issue compulsorily transfer certificate to class VIII
students studying in Session 2021-2022 as being violative of Art.
14 & Art. 21A of the Constitution; and
(c) Pass any other order or orders or writ or direction that this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of
the case.”
5. WP (C) 3971/2022 has been filed by the All India DRDO Labs
Schools Staff Association, which purports to be an association of the
members of the staff of schools set up by the DRDO, which include
the schools forming subject matter of the impugned communication
dated 21 December 2021. WP (C) 7362/2022 is filed by the National
Association for Parents and Students Rights (NAPSR), a registered
trust which seeks to espouse the rights of students and their parents.
6. While both the writ petitions assail, essentially, the same acts of
the respondents, there is, therefore, a fundamental difference in the
grievance and, therefore, the cause of action is espoused in the writ
petitions. This would become apparent from the recital which
follows.
Rival Stands in the writ petitions
WP (C) 3971/2022
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:22:26
Digitally Signed
By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:21:49
W.P.(C) 3971/2022 & cont. matters Page 7 of 39
Case of the petitioners in WP (C) 3971/2022
7. The petitioners in WP (C) 3971/2022 submit thus:
(i) The DRDO provides grant in aid to the educational
societies which manage the affairs of the subject schools.
(ii) The Ministry of Defence (MoD), vide letter dated 28
February 1992 conveyed the sanction of the President of India
for adopting uniform terms and conditions for teachers and staff
of DRDO aided schools, further stating that they would be the
same as were applicable to teachers and staff in Kendriya
5
Vidyalayas except for the teachers and staff of the Pune
School.
(iii) The MoD further, vide letter dated 9 December 1992,
addressed to the Directors of various defence establishments,
required DRDO aided schools to be managed through
educational societies established for the said purpose.
Following the said directive, each DRDO aided school is
managed by an Educational Society, which is headed by a
Senior Scientist of that DRDO lab.
6
(iv) The Director, Directorate of Management Services ,
MoD issued guidelines for DRDO aided schools on 10 March
5
“KVs”, hereinafter
6
“DMS”, hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:22:26
Digitally Signed
By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:21:49
W.P.(C) 3971/2022 & cont. matters Page 8 of 39
1999, which stated, inter alia , that the main rationale for
running DRDO aided schools was the establishment of labs in
areas where normal educational facilities were not available.
These guidelines, once again, reiterated the entitlement of the
teachers and staff of DRDO aided schools to parity with the
conditions applicable to similar employees in KVs.
(v) Teachers and staff of the subject schools were appointed
on the basis of advertisements by the concerned Educational
Societies, which clearly stated that they would be entitled to the
same terms and conditions as were applicable to teachers and
staff in KVs.
(vi) The VII Pay Commission recommendations were, in fact,
implemented in respect of teachers and staff of the subject
schools vide letter dated 30 December 1997. At all point of
time, therefore, the teachers and staff of the subject schools
were at par with the teachers and staff of KVs.
(vii) The DRDO, vide letter dated 12 December 2011
conveyed the sanction of the President of India for incurring of
revenue expenditure of ₹ 11.36 crores for grant of financial
support to the Educational Societies for pay revision and arrears
to the teachers and staff of the subject schools for the period 1
January 2006 to 31 March 2012.
(viii) The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in judgment dated 1
February 2002 in Nalini Sashikant Mulay v. Defence
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:22:26
Digitally Signed
By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:21:49
W.P.(C) 3971/2022 & cont. matters Page 9 of 39
Laboratories Schools and Junior College , held that, the
Educational Societies as well as DRDO were “State” within the
meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. This
decision was never challenged, and has attained finality. It is,
therefore, binding on the respondents.
(ix) The faculty and staff of the subject schools are, therefore,
entitled to continued parity with faculty and staff of KVs.
(x) The subject schools are audited by the Director, Audit,
Defence Services, Central Command. This also indicated that
all activities of the subject schools were being handled by the
MoD.
(xi) The Director, Management Services, on behalf of the
DRDO, issued guidelines dated 11 May 2018 for the subject
schools in which it was stated that the Educational
Societies/Management Committees of the schools would not
recruit teaching or non-teaching staff on regular basis in future
and that, for the future, appointments were to be made on
contract basis. This indicated that the appointments of the
teachers and staff of the subject schools made prior to the said
communication dated 11 May 2018 were on regular basis.
(xii) A Committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of
the Director General, DRDO with the approval of the Defence
Minister to look into utilization of the funds and provide
recommendations relating to DRDO aided schools. The
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:22:26
Digitally Signed
By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:21:49
W.P.(C) 3971/2022 & cont. matters Page 10 of 39
Committee recommended that DRDO aided schools could not
be closed and that efforts be made by the Directorate,
Management Services to handover their management to the
reputed educational institutions on mutually agreed terms,
retaining admission to entry level classes. This
recommendation was approved by the Chairman, DRDO as
communicated by the Directorate, Management Services. The
MoD, Department of Defence Research and Development
wrote to the Chairman, DRDO in March 2020, for grant of
financial upgradation to regular employees of seven DRDO
aided schools with effect from 1 March 2020.
(xiii) The Department of Defence Research and Development
wrote to the Chairman, DRDO on 22 October 2021 regarding
release of Annual Financial Assistance to the Defence Research
and Educational Society, Dehradun (managing the affairs of the
Dehradun schools) for the FY 2021-2022.
(xiv) The entire salary of the staff of the subject schools was
paid by the Department of Defence Research and Development,
MoD as grant in aid, under Major Head No. 2080, Minor Head
No. 800, which deals with “other expenditure”. The Education
Societies were, therefore, “State” within the meaning of Article
12. The schools themselves generate almost 40% of the total
revenue incurred by the grant as grant-in-aid. The total
expenses incurred by the MoD amount to 0.002 to 0.003% of
the total budget allotted to the DRDO and is paid from the
consolidated fund of India.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:22:26
Digitally Signed
By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:21:49
W.P.(C) 3971/2022 & cont. matters Page 11 of 39
(xv) The subject schools are all recognized by the CBSE and
affiliated to the CBSE as Government or Government aided
schools. The applicable regulations of the CBSE do not permit
the school to be closed without the approval of the CBSE.
(xvi) The faculty and staff of the subject schools, who are
members of the petitioner association, have served the schools
for over three decades. Many of them have become over-age
for seeking any other employment.
(xvii) Without considering these facts and without discussing
the matter with the members of the petitioner association, the
DRDO, Headquarters, vide the impugned letter dated 21
December 2021, ordered that no admission would be made to
any class in the subject schools, for the academic session 2022-
2023. It is with this communication that the petitioner is
principally aggrieved.
(xviii) On 1 February 2022, the Defence Research Educational
7
Society , which was managing the Dehradun school, wrote to
the Director, Directorate of Management System, pointing out
that the teachers in the DRDO schools had served the schools
for a long time and were mostly over-age, so that they would
not be able to obtain employment elsewhere. A request was
made, therefore, to provide the guidelines for functioning of the
schools.
7
“the DRES” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:22:26
Digitally Signed
By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:21:49
W.P.(C) 3971/2022 & cont. matters Page 12 of 39
(xix) On 14 January 2022, the DRES Dehradun wrote to the
Principal of the Dehradun school, stating that, as per the
impugned letter dated 21 December 2011, there would be no
new admission in any class in the Dehradun school with effect
from the 2022-2023 academic session.
(xx) On 8 February 2022, the Colonel Radar III LRDE
Bangalore wrote to the Station Commander, Station
Headquarter, stating that, in the FY 2020-2021, policy decision
had been taken to terminate central funding of DRDO run
schools with effect from 31 March 2022. However, in its
written submissions, the petitioner has stated that the DRDO
has, later, issued a circular that admission from Class IX
onwards may be given to students in the DRDO schools,
Ramgarh.
8. It is on the basis of these averments and assertions that the
petitioner has prayed that the communications dated 21 December
2021 of the MoD, 8 February 2022 of the Colonel, Radar III and 14
January 2022 of the DRDO Dehradun, be quashed and set aside and
that the teachers of the subject schools be granted all benefits, which
are made available to the teachers of the KVs.
Counter affidavit in WP(C) 3971/2022
9. The respondents have filed a common counter affidavit, in
which it is averred thus:
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:22:26
Digitally Signed
By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:21:49
W.P.(C) 3971/2022 & cont. matters Page 13 of 39
(i) The DRDO was providing financial assistance to eleven
schools located at different parts of the country. These schools
had been set up three to four decades ago for fulfilling the
educational needs of wards of DRDO employees as the DRDO
labs were located in remote and isolated areas, where normally
educational facilities were not available, and where the State
Governments were reluctant to open schools. Of these eleven
schools, eight schools were run by Educational Societies, two
schools were run by the KVs through a Memorandum of
8
Understanding between the KVs and DRDO and one school,
namely, the Bhavan’s Varuna Vidyalaya at Kochi is run by the
9
Bhartiya Vidya Bhawan , as per the MoU signed by the BVB
and the DRDO.
(ii) A policy decision had been taken by the Government that
the DRDO should concentrate on defence research and
development and exit from running and management of
schools. Accordingly, a High Level Committee was
constituted under the Chairmanship of the Director General
(Human Resource), DRDO, Headquarters in August 2021 to
formulate a roadmap and timelines for exiting running of all
eleven schools aided by the DRDO. Among other options
which were being explored was the option of engaging with
other educational institutions, such as the KVs. Four meetings
had been conducted by the Committee. The proposed plan of
8
“MoU”, hereinafter
9
“BVB”, hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:22:26
Digitally Signed
By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:21:49
W.P.(C) 3971/2022 & cont. matters Page 14 of 39
action was first to make efforts to transfer the schools to
reputed educational institutions and, in case the said efforts
failed, to close down the schools and provide reasonable
compensation to the staff.
(iii) This decision was taken in line with the order passed by
the Supreme Court on 1 September 2017 in UOI v. Central
10
Administrative Tribunal . The particulars of that case may be
set out thus:
(a) The case related to a school run by the Combat
11
Vehicles Research and Development Establishment ,
Chennai since 1978. The school was closed in August
2001, as it was considered unviable. The CVRDE had
been established in 1978 with an initial grant of ₹
63,000/- provided by the DRDO for educating wards of
the CVRDE as a welfare measure. No child other than
ward of the CVRDE employees was admitted in the
school. The teachers and staff of the CVRDE schools
were appointed as per service rules framed by the
management of the school. Their pay, allowances and
other service conditions were also framed by the
Management Committee of the school. As per these
terms and conditions, though they were entitled to pay at
par with employees of the KVs, they could be terminated
at any time by giving one month’s notice. Employees of
10
SLP (C) 19307/2012
11
CVRDE, hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:22:26
Digitally Signed
By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:21:49
W.P.(C) 3971/2022 & cont. matters Page 15 of 39
the CVRDE school approached the Madras Bench of the
12
Central Administrative Tribunal vide OA 592/1990,
seeking regularization of their service. The OA was
dismissed by the CAT on 26 April 1991.
(b) On 28 March 2001, a notice was issued for closing
the CVRDE school as it become unviable. This was
followed by notices of termination issued to the teachers
and staff of the school. Their services came to be
terminated thereafter on various dates. Aggrieved
thereby, the employees of the CVRDE school re-
approached the CAT by way of OA 436/2001. The OA
was dismissed by the CAT vide a common order dated 26
September 2001, directing the CVRDE school to pay
reasonable compensation to the employees. The
employees challenged the said decision before the High
Court by way of WP 20179/2001. The High Court
disposed of the writ petition on 13 March 2003 with the
direction to the employees to represent to the Director,
13
Department of Personnel and Training and a direction
to the DoPT to dispose of the representation in
accordance with the scheme framed under the Central
Civil Services (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules,
14
1990 . The employees represented to the DoPT. The
representations were rejected on 13 February 2004, 19
March 2004 and 1 April 2004 on the ground that the
12
CAT, hereinafter
13
DoPT, hereinafter
14
Surplus Staff Rules, hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:22:26
Digitally Signed
By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:21:49
W.P.(C) 3971/2022 & cont. matters Page 16 of 39
Surplus Staff Rules did not apply to employees of
CVRDE school. The employees thereupon re-
approached the CAT by way of OAs 397-410/2004. By
order dated 25 January 2005, the CAT allowed the OAs
and directed the CVRDE school to consider the claim of
the applicants and included their names in the surplus
schools for redeployment in Government establishments
or provide them alternative employment or transfer them
to any offices under the respondents in terms of the
Surplus Staff Rules. This issue was carried till the
Supreme Court, which, vide order dated 1 September
2017 ( supra ), approved the compensation, which was
offered to the employees, as reasonable.
(iv) The petitioner’s assertion that the DRDO was providing
grant in aid to the educational institutions which were running
the schools, was denied. The DRDO was only providing annual
financial aid, which is not the same as grant in aid. Though no
final decision had been taken to stop grant of annual financial
aid to the educational institutions, a policy decision had been
taken by the Government that the DRDO should focus on its
core areas of defence research and development and exit the
activity of running and management of schools.
(v) The teachers of the subject schools of the DRDO were
neither employees of the DRDO nor employees of the Central
Government. They were only granted certain benefits at par
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:22:26
Digitally Signed
By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:21:49
W.P.(C) 3971/2022 & cont. matters Page 17 of 39
with KVs, so as to take care of their genuine aspirations and
ensure that they would serve the schools with full devotion.
(vi) The rationale for setting up of the schools, three to four
decades earlier, no longer survived. The areas in which the
schools were set up are no longer remote. Many of them have
been urbanized. There is no dearth of good schools in the
nearby areas. These factors, along with the consideration that
the DRDO should focus on its core area of defence research,
justified the impugned decision dated 21 December 2021.
(vii) The faculty and staff of the subject DRDO aided schools
are being paid at par with the faculty and staff of the KVs.
(viii) The contention that the entire salary of the teaching and
non-teaching staff of the subject DRDO aided schools was
being paid by the DRDO as grant in aid, was denied. The
schools were financed only to the extent of the deficit in
revenue generation and expenditure as anticipated by the
Educational Societies, which were running the schools. A large
portion of the salary of teaching and non-teaching staff of the
schools was financed through tuition fees collected from the
students. The funding provided by the DRDO is only financial
aid and not a grant in aid as the petitioner sought to contend.
Thus, it could not be said that the overall control over the
schools vested in DRDO, which merely funded the school
Educational Societies to the extent of deficit and finances. The
plea that CBSE permission had to be taken before the schools
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:22:26
Digitally Signed
By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:21:49
W.P.(C) 3971/2022 & cont. matters Page 18 of 39
are closed was premature. This aspect would be taken care of
before closure of the schools. No final decision to close the
schools had yet been taken.
(ix) The decision not to provide financial assistance to the
erstwhile DRDO aided schools is a matter of financial policy,
with which judicial interference would not be appropriate. It
had been taken at the highest level, so as to promote defence
research activities of the DRDO.
For all these reasons, the counter affidavit prays that the writ petitions
be dismissed.
Rejoinder by the petitioner
10. The petitioner, in the rejoinder to the counter affidavit of the
respondents, seeks to analogize the present case with the judgment of
the Supreme Court in All India Sainik School Employees Association
15
v. Sainik School Society and to contend, on the basis of the said
decision, that the Educational Societies which were running the
schools were “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution of India. Also, reference is once again made to the case
of the CVRDE school, which culminated in the order dated 1
September 2017 of the Supreme Court in U.O.I v. Central
Administrative Tribunal . The petitioner reiterates that, in the said
order, the Supreme Court, even while disposing of the SLP with the
direction to grant reasonable compensation of the employees, did so
15
1989 Supp. 1 SCC 205
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:22:26
Digitally Signed
By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:21:49
W.P.(C) 3971/2022 & cont. matters Page 19 of 39
only because of a concession by the Union of India to that effect. The
Supreme Court did not disturb the directions of the CAT to redeploy
the employees in terms of the Surplus Staff Rules. The said direction,
therefore, it is contended, is binding on the respondent in the present
case.
11. The respondents’ contention, that they were providing only
financial assistance and not a grant in aid, is also refuted and in this
context, reliance is placed on letter dated 30 August 1978 from the
MoD to the Director General, DRD, titled “grant-in-aid to Defence
Laboratories Primary School, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad.
12. The petitioner has also invoked the principle of legitimate
expectation, stating that, while joining as employees of the subject
schools, the members of the petitioner association were under the
“pristine belief” that they were regular employees, who would be
given the same benefits as were provided to similar employees in
KVs. They had worked for over three decades in that belief. Reliance
is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in U.O.I. v.
16
Hindustan Development Corporation .
13. The bona fides of the decision to close the subject schools is
also called into question in the rejoinder. The petitioner has relied on
a press statement by the Defence Minister in January 2022, in which it
was stated that 100 new Sainik Schools were being set up to provide
opportunity to girls to join armed forces etc. In that view of the
matter, it is submitted that the respondents cannot seek to justify the
16
1993 4 SCC 499
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:22:26
Digitally Signed
By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:21:49
W.P.(C) 3971/2022 & cont. matters Page 20 of 39
closure of the subject schools on the premise that a policy decision
had been taken for DRDO to exit the sphere of education.
14. The rejoinder further contends that the closure of the subject
17
schools would be contrary to Section 6 of the Right of Children to
18
Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 .
15. The petitioner further disputes the respondents’ contention that
the ground situation has changed and that there were now several
schools in the vicinity of the DRDO labs. It is sought to be pointed
out that there were no schools within 2 kms of the Kanchan Bagh
DRDO school and no schools within 2 kms of the RCI Lab School at
Hyderabad and no neighbourhood school near the DRDO at Balasore
Odisha.
17
6. Area or limits of neighbourhood.
(1) The area or limits of neighbourhood within which a school has to be established by the
appropriate Government or the local authority shall be
(a) in respect of children in classes from I to V, a school shall be established within
a walking distance of one km of the neighbourhood;
(b) in respect of children in classes from VI to VIII, a school shall be established
within a walking distance of three km of the neighbourhood;
(2) Wherever required the appropriate Government of the local authority shall upgrade
existing schools with classes from I to V to include classes from VI to VIII and in respect of
schools which start from class VI onwards, the appropriate Government or the local authority shall
endeavour to add classes from I to V, wherever required.
(3) In places with difficult terrain, risk of landslides, floods, lack of roads and in general,
danger for young children in the approach from their homes to the school, the appropriate
Government or the local authority shall locate the school in such a manner as to avoid such dangers,
by reducing the area or limits specified under sub-rule (1).
(4) For children from small hamlets, as identified by the appropriate Government or the local
authority, where no school exists within the area or limits of neighbourhood specified under sub-
rule (1), the appropriate Government or the local authority shall make adequate arrangements, such
as free transportation and residential facilities, for providing elementary education in a school, in
relaxation of the area or limits specified in the said rule.
(5) In places with high population density, the appropriate Government or the local authority
may consider establishment of more than one neighbourhood school having regard to the number of
children in the age group of 6-14 years in such places.
(6) The local authority shall identify the neighbourhood school(s) where children can be
admitted and make such information public for each habitation.
(7) In respect of children with disability, which prevent them from accessing the school, the
appropriate Government or the local authority shall endeavour to make appropriate and safe
transportation arrangements to enable them to attend school and complete elementary education.
(8) The appropriate Government or the local authority shall ensure that access of children to
the school is not hindered on account of social and cultural factors.
18
RTE Act, hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:22:26
Digitally Signed
By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:21:49
W.P.(C) 3971/2022 & cont. matters Page 21 of 39
16. It is further contended that the Committee set up by the
respondents in 1999 recommended continuation of the DRDO aided
schools and this recommendation was reiterated by the Committee,
which was set up in 2019. The respondents, therefore, it is contended
that could not refuse to continue the schools merely on the ground that
they had decided by not providing budgetary support. In the process,
the members of the petitioner association had been left in lurch.
Case of the petitioner in WP(C) 7362/2022
17. Besides reiterating the contentions advanced by learned
Counsel for the petitioner in WP (C) 3971/2022, the petitioner in WP
(C) 7362/2022 submits as under:
(i) The subject schools were initially categorized as
“specified category” schools on 15 January 2013, within the
19
meaning of Section 2(p) of the RTE Act, similar to KVs,
Navodaya Vidyalayas and Sainik Schools. Thereafter, they were
re-categorized as Government/Government aided schools at par
with KVs. Consequently, the subject schools are imparting
education as schools established, owned and controlled by the
20
appropriate Government within the meaning of Section 2(n)(i)
of the RTE Act.
19
(p) “specified category”, in relation to a school, means a school known as Kendriya Vidyalaya,
Novodaya Vidyalaya, Sainik School or any other school having a distinct character which may be specified,
by notification, by the appropriate Government;
20
(n) “school” means any recognised school imparting elementary education and includes—
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:22:26
Digitally Signed
By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:21:49
W.P.(C) 3971/2022 & cont. matters Page 22 of 39
(ii) The impugned decision dated 21 December 2021 has
been taken without considering the interest of the children who
are studying in the subject schools. Their constitutionally
guaranteed right to education of the children stands jeopardized
thereby.
(iii) In the Ballistics Vidyalaya, the Management Committee
had already issued several Transfer Certificates to the students of
Class VIII progressing to Class IX, facilitating closure of the
schools. Notices were also issued to the parents of the children
studying in the schools, that they were continuing to educate their
wards at their own risk. The parents were also required to
subscribe to an undertaking that admission of their wards for
academic session 2022-2023 was being done with informed
consent and knowledge of the existing scenario. In the absence
of such an undertaking, the wards were not permitted to continue
in the schools.
(iv) The affiliation bye-laws of the CBSE do not permit
closure of the schools affiliated to the CBSE on any ground
whatsoever, without obtaining prior permission from the CBSE
and from the concerned stakeholders.
(v) The decision to discontinue admission to all classes in the
subject schools, as contained in the impugned communication
(i) a school established, owned or controlled by the appropriate Government or a local
authority;
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:22:26
Digitally Signed
By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:21:49
W.P.(C) 3971/2022 & cont. matters Page 23 of 39
dated 21 December 2021, abrogates the fundamental rights of the
21
petitioner under Article 21A of the Constitution of India.
(vi) Transfer of the subject schools to a private management
would result in increase of fees, which many of the parents would
be unable to bear.
(vii) The MoD could not have decided to discontinue grant in
aid to DRDO run schools even before the Committee, constituted
to look into the issue, had submitted its recommendations.
Besides, the parents of the children studying in the schools, who
are vitally affected, have not been consulted in the process.
(viii) The Expression of Interest (EoI) to third parties to enter
into a Leasehold Agreement, which has been done in the case of
Ballistics Vidyalaya without involving the parents of the children
studying in the school, is violative of Article 299 of the
Constitution of India.
Additional affidavit filed by the petitioner
18. During the course of proceedings, an additional affidavit dated
17 November 2023 was filed by the petitioner. It has been pointed out
in the said additional affidavit that the Ballistics Vidyalaya Managing
Committee had initially issued a press advertisement on 5 May 2022,
calling for EOI from interested parties to take over the management of
21
21-A. Right to education . – The State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the
age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may, by law, determine.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:22:26
Digitally Signed
By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:21:49
W.P.(C) 3971/2022 & cont. matters Page 24 of 39
the Ballistics Vidyalaya on lease agreement basis. Concomitantly,
notice was issued to the parents of the children studying in Classes I
to VII of the Ballistics Vidyalaya, granting them liberty to retain their
wards in the school for the academic session 2023-2024 in larger
public interest, as the management of the school was in the process of
being handed over to another society. The said notice reads thus:
“Ballistics Vidyalaya
( Under the aegis of DRDO Educational Society, Ramgarh )
Notice
( Attention-Parents of Class I to VII students )
1. As per instructions issued by HQ DRDO, MoD, the
management of Ballistics Vidyalaya is likely to change wherein
participation of DRDO officials would not be there.
2. It is brought to your notice that the school is in the
process of handing over to another educational society. The
process of handing over the school is in process at HQ DRDO .
3. In case the school is taken up by another society, it will be
managed as per the fees structure and conditions of the new society
4. If the school is not taken up by another society, the school
may be closed and intimation will be given to relevant authorities.
5. In view of the above parents can collect transfer certificates
for getting admission of their wards in another school.
6. Parents at their own risk may choose to keep their wards in
Ballistics Vidyalaya. You are, therefore requested to provide
undertaking that admissions of your ward(s) in Ballistics Vidyalaya
for academic session 2023-24 is being done with your willingness
and knowledge of the current scenario and DRDO Educational
Society/ Ballistics Vidyalaya Management Committee will not be
held responsible for any future consequences.
7. In absence of the submission of Undertaking, the ward
will not be allowed to continue in Ballistics Vidyalaya .
Sd.
Secretary
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:22:26
Digitally Signed
By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:21:49
W.P.(C) 3971/2022 & cont. matters Page 25 of 39
Ballistics Vidyalaya Management Committee
To
The Principal, BV- For necessary action please”
19. Thereafter, on 2 February 2023, the Managing Committee of
the Ballistics Vidyalaya directed the Principal of the Ballistics
Vidyalaya to stop new admissions. The said notice reads thus:
“DRDO EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, RAMGARH
(Ballistics Vidyalaya Management Committee)
Subject: Regarding Academic session 2023-24
1. As you are aware, DRDO has decided to exit from
DRDO-aided schools and instructed all societies to submit a
roadmap for transferring the management to other reputed
facilities, in this regard, the process of handing over BV is in
process at HQ DRDO.
2. As per instructions issued by HQ DRDO, MoD; the
management of Ballistics Vidyalaya, is likely to change wherein
participation of DRDO officials would not be there,
3. HỌ DRDO had issued directives to stop new admissions
in Ballistics Vidyalaya in the academic session 2022-23 which is
also applicable for the current session 2023-24. Accordingly,
Ballistics Vidyalaya Management Committee has decided to stop
new admissions in Ballistics Vidyalaya.
4. You are directed to comply with the following directives:
a) No new admission will be done in any class for the
academic session 2023-24.
b) Admission of promotees from classes I to VII to
higher classes in Ballistics Vidyalaya to be continued with
co-advisory to all the students & parents.
c) No admission of the students of class VIII
promoted to class IX will be done at BV as school will be
running classes I to VIII till the handing over is completed.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:22:26
Digitally Signed
By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:21:49
W.P.(C) 3971/2022 & cont. matters Page 26 of 39
d) Issue transfer certificates to students of Class VIII
(Session 2022-23). The students of all classes desirous to
take TCs be provided accordingly.
e) Distribute the attached advisories to respective
students and their parents/guardians.
f) Inform the students and parents of all classes about
the decision of the management.
5. This is for the information of all teaching and non-
teaching staff.
Sd.
Secretary BVMC”
20. The additional affidavit further alleges that hostile
discrimination is being practiced with the subject schools vis-à-vis
other schools for which the proposal to shift the management of the
schools and invite EOI have been withdrawn, to wit, in the case of the
the Defence Laboratory School, Kanchan Bagh, the Range School,
Chandipur and the Ramnath Secondary School, Vishakhapatnam.
Written submissions dated 15 May 2024 filed by the petitioner
21. On 15 May 2024, the petitioner filed written submissions,
stating that the DRDO Educational Society Ramgarh (in charge of the
Dehradun School) had allowed Class VIII students to be promoted to
Class IX for the academic year 2024-2025 and that Classes had also
commenced on 5 April 2024.
Counter affidavit of respondents
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:22:26
Digitally Signed
By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:21:49
W.P.(C) 3971/2022 & cont. matters Page 27 of 39
22. In their counter affidavit, the respondents have, while
reiterating the averments contained in the counter affidavit in WP(C)
3971/2022, additionally submitted that the Educational Societies
managing DRDO aided schools are independent societies and
registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860, which have their
own by-laws, rules and regulations. Generally, no instructions to
these societies are issued by the DRDO regarding the running of the
schools.
23. The contention that the subject schools fall within the definition
of schools “owned and controlled by the appropriate Government”
within the meaning of Section 2(n)(i) of the RTE Act is emphatically
denied. The CBSE affiliation itself indicates that the schools are
independent. The change of category by the CBSE, it is submitted,
does not apply to the subject schools.
24. It is further pointed out that the impugned letter dated 21
December 2021 does not direct closure of the subject schools. It
merely requests the schools to hold in abeyance admission to all
classes in the academic session 2022-2023.
25. The recommendations of the Committee, which was constituted
in 2019, it is submitted, were based on the facts and circumstances
then obtaining. Since then, circumstances had changed, and a bona
fide policy decision has been taken by the DRDO that the DRDO
would exit from the sphere of education so as to concentrate on its
core activities of Defence Research and Development. This decision,
it is submitted, is not amenable to judicial interference.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:22:26
Digitally Signed
By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:21:49
W.P.(C) 3971/2022 & cont. matters Page 28 of 39
26. Similarly, the respondents contend that the decision not to make
new admissions does not, in any manner, impact the constitutional
rights of the petitioner. The counter affidavit further assures that,
while transferring the schools to other educational institutions, all
applicable statutory rules and regulations would be complied with.
The school, it is pointed out, are not yet being closed and sincere
efforts are being made to transfer the management of the school to
other reputed educational institutions.
Analysis
27. The genesis of the controversy, in both the writ petitions, is
undisputedly the policy decision of the respondents that the DRDO
should exit the activity of education and concentrate on its core
function of defence research and development. It goes without saying
that such a policy decision is completely impervious from judicial
interference. Two other factors which, according to the counter-
affidavit filed by the respondents, fueled this decision, were the fact
that the number of students of DRDO staff who were attending the
school had dwindled, and that the areas where the schools had been
set up and which, at that time, few educational opportunities, had
become rapidly urbanized, with other schools being established in the
vicinity. These facts, as averred by the respondent on oath, are not in
dispute.
28. The decision to dissociate DRDO from the activity of education
is purely one of policy. It is motivated by the consideration of
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:22:26
Digitally Signed
By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:21:49
W.P.(C) 3971/2022 & cont. matters Page 29 of 39
allowing the DRDO to concentrate on its core activities of defence
research and development, and distance itself from other endeavours.
This consideration, even by itself, would be sufficient to insulate the
decision from judicial interference, though it is also pointed out that
the number of DRDO employees’ students who are taking admission
in the schools is dwindling, and that other schools have, in the
meanwhile, been established in the vicinity.
29. The Court cannot second guess the policy of the executive in
such matters. Especially so when the matter relates to defence, any
such attempt on the part of the Court would be a total misadventure,
and fraught with the possibility of adverse impact on national
interests. As the policy decision is obviously in national interest, I do
not deem it necessary to burden this judgment with any reference to
judicial precedents which advocate reticence in the matter of
interference with executive policy, though they are many and well
known.
30. Most of the decisions under challenge in these writ petitions are
a sequitur to the said policy decision. The respondents have come on
affidavit to say that there is no decision presently to close the schools,
and that any such decision, if taken would be strictly in accordance
with the law and applicable statutes. The record reveals that,
presently, the matter is still under discussion, and, even if it is found
that the DRDO cannot run these schools, the first effort would be to
hand over their administration to reputed organizations such as the
KVS and that it is only if these efforts prove futile that other avenues
would be explored. There is, therefore, no imminent threat of the
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:22:26
Digitally Signed
By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:21:49
W.P.(C) 3971/2022 & cont. matters Page 30 of 39
schools being closed. In view of the respondents’ assurance that, in
the event of any such decision having to be taken, the procedure
established by law in that regard would be followed, no interdictory
orders can be passed by the Court.
31. The facts relating to the CVRDE school are also relevant. The
judgment of the High Court of Madras in U.O.I. v. Central
22
Administrative Tribunal sets out the facts. They are largely similar
to the case at hand. The CVRDE school was set up in 1978 with an
initial grant of ₹ 63,000/– provided by the DRDO, for educating
employees of the CVRDE. No child other than the award of the
CVRDE was allowed admission in the school. The litigation was
23
initiated by 14 contractual employees , employed with the CVRDE
school. Their payscales and service conditions were at par with
employees of KVs. Except for the fact that they were contract
employees, therefore, they were situated identically to the members of
the petitioner-association in WP (C) 3971/2022.
32. On 8 March 2001, a notice was issued for closing the CVRDE
school as it had become financially unviable. Consequent thereon, the
14 employees were issued notices of termination, whereafter their
services were terminated. Aggrieved thereby, the 14 employees
petitioned the CAT, seeking regularisation of their services. DOA was
dismissed by the CAT. However, the CVRDE School was directed to
pay reasonable compensation to the 14 employees. The 14 employees
petitioned the High Court which, on 13 March 2003, disposed of the
22
MANU/TN/2814/2012
23
"the 14 employees", hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:22:26
Digitally Signed
By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:21:49
W.P.(C) 3971/2022 & cont. matters Page 31 of 39
writ petition with a direction to the employees to represent to the
DoPT, which was directed to consider the representation in
accordance with the scheme framed under the Surplus Staff Rules.
The DOPT rejected the 14 employees’ representations, stating that
their case was not covered by the Surplus Staff Rules. The 14
employees reapproached the CAT which, by a common order dated 25
January 2005, allowed their OAs and directed the respondents to
include the names of the 14 employees in the surplus school and
consider them for redeployment in Government establishments or
provide an alternative employment in terms of the Surplus Staff Rules.
The respondents approached the High Court against the said decision.
The High Court, by judgment dated 21 March 2012, dismissed the
writ petition of the respondents and directed them to comply with the
judgment of the CAT.
33. The Union of India challenged the judgment of the High Court
before the Supreme Court by way of SLP. Before the Supreme Court,
the respondents filed an affidavit, offering compensation to the 14
employees. The Supreme Court disposed of the SLP by the following
order passed on 1 September 2017:
st
“In pursuance of order of this Court dated 1 December, 2015,
th
affidavit dated 28 January, 2016 has been filed on behalf of the
Union of India. We are satisfied that the compensation offered in
terms of the said affidavit is reasonable. The same may
accordingly be paid to the respondents within 3 months from
today.
The special leave petition is accordingly disposed of.”
34. The respondents have, in the present petition, stated that, as of
now, the members of the petitioner-Association are not being
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:22:26
Digitally Signed
By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:21:49
W.P.(C) 3971/2022 & cont. matters Page 32 of 39
terminated. Attempts are being made to transfer the administration of
the subject schools to educational institutions such as the KVS. In the
event that the said attempt is not fruitful, there is also a plan to invite
private players to manage the subject schools. It is only after
exploring all other possible avenues that, if there is no other
alternative, the schools may be closed.
35. In that event, no doubt, the respondents have tentatively
contemplated compensating the teachers and staff of the schools on
the same terms as were applied to the 14 employees of the CVRDE
school.
36. I do not deem it necessary, or even appropriate, to pronounce on
the entitlement of the members of the petitioner-Association, were
such a situation to come to pass. As of today, no decision, prejudicial
to the members of the petitioner-Association, has been taken by the
respondents. In the event that they are faced with an imminent threat
of termination of their services, it would be for the members of the
petitioner-Association to, at that stage, ventilate their rights in
accordance with law. This Court cannot provide an advance ruling in
that regard, forestalling the rival contentions that may be urged in
such a case. Suffice it, therefore, to state that, if such a situation
arises, the members of the petitioner-Association would be at liberty
to take up the issue in any manner known to the law.
37. The petitioners have sought to project a picture of the subject
schools being entirely funded and managed by the DRDO, or the
Ministry of Defence. That this is not the position is apparent from the
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:22:26
Digitally Signed
By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:21:49
W.P.(C) 3971/2022 & cont. matters Page 33 of 39
letter dated 28 February 1992 of the Department of Defence Research
and Development, MOD, on which the petitioner itself places
reliance. The said letter may be reproduced, in extenso , thus:
“No. DRDO/Admn-1/2001/SP
Government of India
Ministry of Defence
Dept. of Def. Research & Development
New Delhi, the 09 December 1992
The Director,
CVRDE, DLRL, NSTL, R & DE, P & EE
Subject: FORMATION OF EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY
Reference letter No. DRDO/Adm-1/827/D (R & D) dated
28 February 1992.
2. As per the Government letter referred above, the teachers
and staff of DRDO Aided Schools are eligible for pay scales, DA,
CCA, HRA, Teaching Allowance, Employees Provident Fund,
gratuity and leave as applicable to the teachers and staff of
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. The Government letter also
provides for Group Insurance & Scheme/Deposit Linked Scheme,
LTC, within the State once in 4 years and medical reimbursement
up to maximum of ₹ 600/– per annum to those employees whose
spouses are not eligible for any LTC or medical facilities.
3. Though the teachers and staff of the schools are not
employees of DRDO/Central Government , certain facilities at par
with KVS employees have been given to them . This should take
care of the genuine aspirations of the teachers and staff of these
schools and they should be able to devote their full time and
energy to the smooth and efficient functioning of the schools.
4. The DRDO aided schools are to be managed through
Educational Societies formed for the purposes. These Societies
should be registered with the concerned State Government. It is
also imperative that the rules and regulations to govern these
schools should be formulated in line with the Government later
referred above.
5. A set of rules and regulations formulated and adopted by
the Educational Society of CVRDE School, Madras, is enclosed
for your reference and guidance. These rules and regulations have
already been cleared by the Ministry of Law. We would appreciate
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:22:26
Digitally Signed
By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:21:49
W.P.(C) 3971/2022 & cont. matters Page 34 of 39
if the rules and regulations in the case of all DRDO aided schools
are an identical pattern but for any deviations which are essential.
6. You are requested to formulate the rules and regulations in
respect of your school and forward a copy of the same to us by 15
January 1992.
7. Please acknowledge.
CSAA Zaidi J
Brigadier
Director Management Services
For DGR&D”
Thus, it is clear that the subject schools are merely provided aid by the
DRDO, and that their employees and staff are not employees, or staff,
of the DRDO or of the Central Government. Certain facilities, at par
with employees of the KVS, have been provided to afford a level of
comfort to the employees and staff of the subject schools and enable
them to discharge their duties efficiently. The management of the
subject schools is entirely with the concerned Societies, which
functioned as per their own by laws, rules and regulations.
38. For this reason, too, the Court cannot issue a mandamus to the
MOD or to the DRDO to continue to provide aid or financial
assistance to the subject schools. The respondents have also stated on
affidavit to state that, though a tentative decision to discontinue
providing of financial aid to the subject schools was taken, the matter
is still under consideration, and no final decision in that regard has
been arrived at. Para 2.35 of the counter-affidavit filed by the
respondents in WP (C) 3971/2022 specifically avers thus:
“2.35 That in reply to the contents of Para 2.35 of the petition it is
submitted that the aspect of taking permission from the CBSE will
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:22:26
Digitally Signed
By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:21:49
W.P.(C) 3971/2022 & cont. matters Page 35 of 39
be taken care of before the closure of schools for which no final
decision has been taken till now .”
(Emphasis supplied)
At the highest, therefore, all that can be done is to direct that, in the
event that the DRDO does decide to discontinue providing aid to the
subject schools, and it becomes impossible to transfer the
management of the schools to any other institution, or otherwise
accommodate the members of the petitioner Association, any decision
that is taken in that regard would be in accordance with the law. The
Court cannot predict every difficulty that the petitioners may face in
future and provide succour in advance. It is only when a sustainable
cause of action arises that the Court can step in with remedial
measures. That stage, insofar as the petitioners are concerned, is yet
to arise. If and when it does, the right of the petitioners to seek legal
remedies shall remain reserved.
39. The attempt of the petitioners to analogise their case with the
100 Sainik Schools which the MOD is opening, is ex facie futile. In
the first place, the Sainik Schools are not aided by the DRDO, but are
directly run by the MOD. Besides, it is the petitioners’ own case that
the Sainik Schools are being run so as to encourage girls to join the
Armed Forces. They, therefore, serve an entirely different public
purpose, as compared to the purpose which was served by the subject
schools. The subject schools had been opened essentially to cater to
the wards of DRDO employees, as there was a dearth of good schools
in the vicinity of DRDO labs. There may still be individual cases of
insufficiency of schools but, by and large, the assertion of the
respondents in their counter-affidavit that, over the past two decades
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:22:26
Digitally Signed
By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:21:49
W.P.(C) 3971/2022 & cont. matters Page 36 of 39
since the subject schools were established, the areas in which they
were set up have rapidly become urbanised and other viable
educational options have emerged, resulting, in fact, in a substantial
reduction of the number of wards of DRDO employees who are
seeking admission in the subject schools, merits serious consideration.
These are all factors which are relevant to the impugned decision, and
this Court cannot substitute its subjective view in that regard.
40. It has also been sought to be contended that the impugned
decision violates Section 6 of the RTE Act. The contention is
obviously one of desperation, and has merely to be urged to be
rejected. Section 6 casts a duty on the executive administration to
ensure the availability of schools in the neighbourhood. No
compulsion on the DRDO to continue providing of financial aid to the
subject schools can, by any stretch of imagination, be read into
Section 6 of the RTE Act. Nor does Section 6 contain any
proscription against closing of schools, should such an eventuality
arise.
41. Equally, the contention that, before taking a decision to
discontinue financial aid to the subject schools, the DRDO ought to
have consulted the members of the petitioner-Association, is also
completely misconceived. There is no requirement, in the law, to
consult the faculty or staff of the subject schools before a decision is
taken to discontinue financial aid, to the said schools, by the DRDO.
No decision, prejudicial to the members of the petitioner-Association,
has been taken as on date. Even otherwise, providing of financial aid
is an administrative decision, and, inasmuch as it does not directly
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:22:26
Digitally Signed
By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:21:49
W.P.(C) 3971/2022 & cont. matters Page 37 of 39
impact the members of the petitioner-Association, no requirement, in
law, for their being consulted before such a decision is taken, can be
said to exist.
42. Insofar as the petitioner in WP (C) 3971/2022 is concerned,
therefore, the petition is essentially premature, and is more in the
nature of a knee-jerk panic reaction to the decision of the DRDO to
discontinue providing financial aid to the subject schools. That
decision, being purely one of financial and defence policy, is
impervious to judicial interference. Should, at any point of time, the
members of the petitioner-Association face any threat of adverse
consequences on their service conditions, their right to agitate their
legitimate claims, in that regard, would stand reserved. Nothing,
beyond this, can be granted by the Court.
43. Adverting, now, WP (C) 7362/2022, the petition is obviously
devoid of any sustainable cause of action. The decision to discontinue
admissions, as per the respondents in the counter-affidavit, was only
for fresh admissions, with which the members of the petitioner-
Association in the writ petition cannot be concerned. Admissions to
higher classes are taking place, and students are being promoted. If,
given the situation of flux regarding providing of financial aid to the
subject schools, the DRDO decided to suspend fresh admissions for a
period of time, no illegality exists in such a decision.
44. As already noted, as of today, no final decision to close the
subject schools has been taken. The attempt is, in the event of the
DRDO unable to continue providing financial aid to the schools, to
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:22:26
Digitally Signed
By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:21:49
W.P.(C) 3971/2022 & cont. matters Page 38 of 39
transfer the administration to the KVS or some other such educational
institution. It is only if all other attempts fail that any decision to
close the schools would be taken. If, at that stage, the wards of the
members of the petitioner-Association, who are studying in the
subject schools, face prejudice, it shall be open to the said students, or
their parents, to seek their remedies in accordance with law.
Conclusion
45. Both the writ petitions are, therefore, disposed of by dismissing
the challenge to the proposed decision of the DRDO to discontinue
providing financial aid to the subject schools, while preserving the
right of the members of the petitioner-Associations in both the writ
petitions to avail legal remedies, in the event of any cause of action
arising in that regard, in accordance with the observations made
hereinabove.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J
JULY 30, 2024
rb
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:22:26
Digitally Signed
By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN
HARI SHANKAR
Signing Date:08.08.2024
14:21:49
W.P.(C) 3971/2022 & cont. matters Page 39 of 39