Janki Das Kapur Public School And Another vs The Educational Tribunal Sonepat And Others

1
CWP-13775-2024 (O&M) and other connected cases



IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH
244
Date of Decision: Date of Decision: 25 Date of Decision: Date of Decision: 25 25.08.2026 25 .08.2026 .08.2026 .08.2026

1. CWP-13775-2024 (O&M)

JANKI DAS KAPUR PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANOTHER

…petitioners
VS

THE EDUCATIONAL TRIBUNAL SONEPAT & OTHERS

…respondents


2. CWP-13796-2024

JANKI DAS KAPUR PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANOTHER

…petitioners
VS

THE EDUCATIONAL TRIBUNAL SONEPAT & OTHERS

…respondents

CORAM: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CORAM: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR HARPREET SINGH BRAR HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present : Mr. Anand Chhibbhar, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Ateevraj Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in
both cases.

Ms. Ashwarya Bajaj, Advocate for
Respondent No.2 in both cases.

Mr. R.S. Budhwar, Addl. AG, Haryana.




HARPREET SINGH BRAR HARPREET SINGH BRAR HARPREET SINGH BRAR HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral)
1. With the consent of all the parties, the aforementioned
writ petitions are taken up together and are being decided by this
PARUL VERMA
2026.09.02 14:02
I attest the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

2
CWP-13775-2024 (O&M) and other connected cases



common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are
being taken from CWP-13796-2024.
2. This Civil Writ Petition has been filed under Article
226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the
nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated
04.05.2024 (Annexure P-27) passed by Respondent No.1, whereby the
appeal filed by Respondent No.2 has been allowed and the order of
termination dated 14.05.2022 has been declared void ab-initio, illegal,
non-est and without jurisdiction; and further for issuance of an ad
interim ex parte order staying the operation of the impugned order
dated 04.05.2024 (Annexure P-27) during the pendency of the present
writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s), inter alia , contends
that the Education Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence led
by the petitioner-school. The school was not bound to initiate an
inquiry, as the misconduct on the part of the respondent was apparent
and incontrovertible. As such, conducting an inquiry would have been
an empty formality and a waste of time. A show-cause notice was
issued on 24.02.2022 (Annexure P-16); therefore, it is not a case
where the petitioner was condemned unheard. The principles of
natural justice were duly adhered to, and the petitioner's explanation
was called for vide show-cause notice dated 24.02.2022 (Annexure
P-16). His reply to the said notice (Annexure P-17) was duly
considered, and the intimation that an inquiry was going to be held
PARUL VERMA
2026.09.02 14:02
I attest the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

3
CWP-13775-2024 (O&M) and other connected cases



against him was duly communicated on 08.03.2022 (Annexure
P-19). As such, the judgment rendered by the learned Education
Tribunal is liable to be set aside.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits
that admittedly, the petitioner is a private unaided recognized school.
As such, it is governed by the Haryana School Education Rules, 2003.
Further, Rules 161 and 162 of the Rules ibid provide a complete
mechanism for laying down the service conditions and execution of
the contract of service, which also includes the code of conduct and
penalties to be imposed upon the employees in terms of the Rules of
2003. The petitioner-school has framed its service rules known as the
Service Rules & Regulations for the Employees and Teaching Staff of
Jankidas Kapur Public School, Sector-14, Sonepat (Annexure P-10).
Further, referring to the procedure prescribed for dismissal in the said
service rules, learned counsel refers to the rules dealing with dismissal
at page No.88 of the paper-book and submits that the aforesaid service
rules clearly provide that the services of an employee can be
terminated on account of misconduct only after conducting a regular
inquiry or upon admission of charges, where the employee admits the
charges at any stage including preliminary enquiry without issuance
of a charge-sheet or during preliminary probing. He further refers to
the charge-sheet dated 08.03.2022 (Annexure P-18), wherein
reference to the service rules has been made and a major penalty has
been proposed against the petitioner. Further, on 08.03.2022
PARUL VERMA
2026.09.02 14:02
I attest the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

4
CWP-13775-2024 (O&M) and other connected cases



(Annexure P-19), the petitioner was placed under suspension and it
was clearly conveyed to him that an inquiry was going to be held
against him. As such, the petitioner was suspended with immediate
effect till the conclusion of the inquiry. However, to the shock and
dismay of the petitioner, the inquiry contemplated under the service
rules was never held and his services were terminated vide order dated
14.05.2022 (Annexure P-24), compelling the petitioner to approach
the Education Tribunal.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
after perusal of the record, it transpires that the State of Haryana has
constituted the Education Tribunal in terms of the directions issued by
the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai
Foundation & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2002) 8 SCC 481 .
Further, Division Bench of this Court in Management of S.D. Model
Sr. Sec. School vs. District Judge-cum-Service Tribunal, 2014(1)
SCT 652 , has considered the scope and ambit of the powers of the
Education Tribunal and has categorically held that, except in matters
relating to gratuity, the Tribunal is fully equipped to deal with all
service matters relating to the service conditions of employees of
private unaided schools.
6. The main argument raised on behalf of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the termination order dated
14.05.2022 cannot be interfered with by the Education Tribunal, as
the same was effected in terms of the contract of employment. In
PARUL VERMA
2026.09.02 14:02
I attest the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

5
CWP-13775-2024 (O&M) and other connected cases



order to appreciate the aforesaid contention, it would be relevant to
notice that the respondent-School is a recognized school in the State
of Haryana. Admittedly, the petitioner school is an unaided
recognized school. It is also not in dispute that private unaided
recognized schools are governed by the Haryana School Education
Act, 1995 and the Haryana School Education Rules, 2003. Further,
Rule 161 (supra) regulates the terms and conditions of employment of
their employees. Rule 161 specifically contemplates that the
relationship between the school management and its employees,
though contractual in nature, is subject to the written contract of
service prescribed under the Rules in Appendix-B. Thus, while the
relationship between the employer and employee is contractual, such
contract is not wholly unregulated and remains subject to the statutory
framework governing recognized private unaided schools. In this
context, Rules 161 and 162 of the Haryana School Education Rules,
2003 are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-
“e. Contract of Service.
161. Signing of contract.
The Managing Committee of every recognized private
school shall enter into a written contract of service in
appendix B with every employee of such school. A
passport size photo of each employee shall be affixed on
the filled in proforma of contract of his service.

B. Service rules for employees of unaided recognized
schools and employees working in aided schools on
unaided posts.

162. Service conditions -
PARUL VERMA
2026.09.02 14:02
I attest the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

6
CWP-13775-2024 (O&M) and other connected cases



(1) Every Managing Committee of Recognized school i.e.
running under self finance scheme shall frame Rules and
regulations of their employees with regard to

(i) service conditions of the employees

(ii) recruitment procedure

(iii) salary to the teacher (not less than minimum wage
policy of the state)

(iv) service benefits i.e. contributory provident fund,
medical, leave, increments etc.

(v) qualification of teaching and non teaching staff (not
less than prescribed 2003 Rules)

(vi) Code of Conduct and penalties

(vii) constitution of disciplinary committee etc.

(viii) the school authority shall pay the salary to the staff
through bank or cheque"

6.1. The perusal of the aforesaid Rules clearly indicates that
the School Management is under an obligation to enter into an
agreement/contract of employment as per Appendix B and, further, to
frame rules and regulations governing the service conditions of its
employees. Further, Rule 162(1)(i) to (viii) provides for framing of
rules regarding service conditions, recruitment procedure, salary, code
of conduct and penalties, amongst other matters. It is not disputed
that, in terms of the mandate of the aforesaid Rules, the petitioner has
framed the Janki Dass Public Service Rules, 2012. The rules framed
by the petitioner-school lay down a complete mechanism from the
initial appointment of an employee and provide for the service
conditions, including the age of superannuation and a detailed
PARUL VERMA
2026.09.02 14:02
I attest the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

7
CWP-13775-2024 (O&M) and other connected cases



procedure in cases of suspension, inquiry and penalty to which an
employee can be subjected. Once the service rules have been framed
by the petitioner-school in terms of Rules 161 and 162, the petitioner-
school is bound to follow the procedure prescribed therein and cannot
deviate from the same in any manner. Similar observations were made
by a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anuradha
Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637 , wherein, speaking
through Justice N.V. Ramana, it was held as under:-
“98. We also direct that all the above procedural
safeguards, as elucidated by us need to be mandatorily
followed. In this context, this Court in the Hukam Chand
Shyam Lal (supra) and observed the following:- “18. It is
well settled that where a power is required to be
exercised by a certain authority in a certain way, it
should be exercised in that manner or not at all, and all
other amodes (sic) of performance are necessarily
forbidden. It is all the more necessary to observe this rule
where power is of a drastic nature. ”

7. Admittedly, after issuance of the charge-sheet and
placing the petitioner under suspension, the departmental inquiry
contemplated under the Service Rules, 2012 was not initiated, and the
petitioner was terminated without holding the inquiry. The argument
advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that the misconduct
was apparent and that holding an inquiry was, therefore, unnecessary,
is required to be rejected. There is no material on record to indicate
that the facts of the present case fall within the category of exceptional
cases where holding an inquiry would be meaningless. Moreover, the
PARUL VERMA
2026.09.02 14:02
I attest the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

8
CWP-13775-2024 (O&M) and other connected cases



scope of interference by this Court with the findings recorded by the
Tribunal is well settled.
8. It is trite law that a writ of certiorari is issued to correct
jurisdictional errors or illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction,
including violations of the principles of natural justice. However, the
power is supervisory in nature and not appellate. Accordingly, while
errors of law apparent on the face of the record are amenable to
correction, findings of fact arrived at by the competent authority upon
appreciation of evidence cannot be reappreciated or interfered with
under writ jurisdiction. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the
judgement of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Syed Yakoob v. K. S. Radhakrishnan, 1964 AIR SC 477 , wherein,
speaking through Justice P. B. Gajendragadkar, the following was
observed:
“7. The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High
Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Article 226 has been
frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position
in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of certiorari can be
issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by
inferior courts or tribunals : these are cases where orders are
passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or
is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise
jurisdiction. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise
of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal acts
illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question
without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected
by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with
the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There
is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of
certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court
exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This
PARUL VERMA
limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by
2026.09.02 14:02
I attest the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

9
CWP-13775-2024 (O&M) and other connected cases



the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of
evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ
proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of
the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact,
however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of
fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be
issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the
Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and
material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible
evidence which has influenced the impugned finding.
Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that
would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected
by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases,
however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact
recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings
for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and
material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was
insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding.
The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and
the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said
points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within
these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts
under Article 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be
legitimately exercised (vide Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad
Ishaque, 1955-1 SCR 1104 : Nagendra Nath v. Commr. of
Hills Division, 1958 SCR 1240 and Kaushalya Devi v.
Bachittar Singh, AIR 1960 Supreme Court 1168 .
8. It is, of course, not easy to define or adequately describe
what an error of law apparent on the face of the record means.
What can be corrected by a writ has to be an error of law; but
it must be such an error of law as can be regarded as one
which is apparent on the face of the record. Where it is
manifest or clear that the conclusion of law recorded by an
inferior Court or Tribunal is based on an obvious mis-
interpretation of the relevant statutory provision, or
sometimes in ignorance of it, or may be, even in disregard of
it, or is expressly founded on reasons which are wrong in law,
the said conclusion can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In
all these cases, the impugned conclusion should be so plainly
inconsistent with the relevant statutory provision that no
difficulty is experienced by the High Court in holding that the
PARUL VERMA
2026.09.02 14:02
I attest the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

10
CWP-13775-2024 (O&M) and other connected cases



said error of law is apparent on the face of the record. It may
also be that in some cases, the impugned error of law may not
be obvious or patent on the face of the record as such and the
Court may need an argument to discover the said error; but
there can be no doubt that what can be corrected by a writ of
certiorari is an error of law and the said error must, on the
whole, be of such a character as would satisfy the test that it is
an error of law apparent on the face of the record. If a statutory
provision is reasonably capable of two constructions and one
construction has been adopted by the inferior Court or
Tribunal, its conclusion may not necessarily or always be open
to correction by a writ of certiorari. In our opinion, it is neither
possible nor desirable to attempt either to define or to describe
adequately all cases of errors which can be appropriately
described as errors of law apparent on the face of the record.
Whether or not an impugned error is an error of law and an
error of law which is apparent on the face of the record, must
always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each cases
and upon the nature and scope of the legal provision which is
alleged to have been misconstrued or contravened.”
(Emphasis added)
9. Furthermore, a two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in General Manager, Electrical Rengali Hydro Electric
Project, Orissa v. Sri Giridhari Sahu, 2019(10) SCC 695 , speaking
through Justice K.M. Joseph, has observed as follows in this regard:
“29. On the conspectus of the decisions and material, we would
hold as follows:
The jurisdiction to issue writ of certiorari is supervisory and
not appellate. The Court considering a writ application of
Certiorari will not don the cap of an Appellate Court. It will
not reappreciate evidence. The Writ of Certiorari is intended
to correct jurisdictional excesses. A writ of prohibition would
issue when a Tribunal or authority has not yet concluded its
proceedings. Once a decision is rendered by a body amenable
to Certiorari jurisdiction, certiorari could be issued when a
jurisdictional error is clearly established. The jurisdictional
error may be from failure to observe the limits of its
jurisdiction. It may arise from the procedure adopted by the
PARUL VERMA
2026.09.02 14:02
I attest the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

11
CWP-13775-2024 (O&M) and other connected cases



body after validly assuming jurisdiction. It may act in
violation of principles of natural justice. The body whose
decision which comes under attack may decide a collateral
fact which is also a jurisdictional fact and assume
jurisdiction. Such a finding of fact is not immune from being
interfered with by a Writ of Certiorari. As far as the finding of
fact which is one within the jurisdiction of the court, it is
ordinarily a matter 'off bounds' for the writ court. This is for
the reason that a body which has jurisdiction to decide the
matter has the jurisdiction to decide it correctly or wrongly. It
would become a mere error and that too an error of fact.
However, gross it may amount to, it does not amount to an
error of law. An error of law which becomes vulnerable to
judicial scrutiny by way of Certiorari must also one which is
apparent on the face of the record. As held by this Court in
Hari Vishnu Kamath (supra) , as to what constitutes an error
apparent on the face of the record, is a matter to be decided by
the court on the facts of each case. A finding of fact which is not
supported by any evidence would be perverse and in fact would
constitute an error of law enabling the writ court to interfere. It
is also to be noticed that if the overwhelming weight of the
evidence does not support the finding, it would render the
decision amendable to certiorari jurisdiction. This would be the
same as a finding which is wholly unwarranted by the evidence
which is what this Court has laid down [See M/s. Perry and
Co. Ltd (supra) ].”
(Emphasis added)
10. Adverting to the facts of the present case, learned counsel
for the petitioner(s) could not point out any jurisdictional error,
violation of the principles of natural justice, or any other ground that
would warrant interference with the impugned orders in exercise of
the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
11. In view of the discussion above, this Court does not find
it appropriate to invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under
PARUL VERMA
2026.09.02 14:02
I attest the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

12
CWP-13775-2024 (O&M) and other connected cases



Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, both the present
petitions stand dismissed.
12 . Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also
stand disposed of.
13. Photocopy of this order be placed on the files of
connected case(s).

25.08.2026 (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
parul verma JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No

PARUL VERMA
2026.09.02 14:02
I attest the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment