A recognised private school cannot terminate employees without the Director’s prior approval.

The four petitioners were employed on a regular basis at respondent No. 3, an unaided private school governed by the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (“DSE Act”) and the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (“DSE Rules”).

After the petitioners complained to the Directorate of Education (“DoE”) about alleged irregularities in the school’s salary practices, the school terminated their services by letters dated 14 May 2019.

They sought quashing of the termination letters, reinstatement, and full back wages.

The school did not dispute that it had obtained no prior DoE approval under Section 8(2) of the DSE Act; the DoE confirmed that no approval had been sought.

The school objected that the petitioners should pursue the statutory appeal before the Delhi School Tribunal.

The writ petition had been pending since 2020.

1. Whether the High Court should entertain the writ petition despite the statutory remedy before the Delhi School Tribunal, given the alleged breach of natural justice and Section 8(2) of the DSE Act.

2. Whether the petitioners’ termination was invalid for want of prior DoE approval under Section 8(2) and, if so, whether they were entitled to reinstatement and full salary and allowances for the period of termination.

Article 226 confers constitutional jurisdiction that is not ousted by the availability of an alternative remedy, although the High Court ordinarily exercises restraint; recognised exceptions include breach of natural justice and proceedings wholly without jurisdiction.

The Court applied the principles in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2021) 6 SCC 771, and Satwati Deswal v. State of Haryana, (2010) 1 SCC 126, on those exceptions.

Section 8(2) of the DSE Act prohibits dismissal, removal, reduction in rank, or other termination of an employee of a recognised private school without the Director’s prior approval.

Sections 8(3) and 11 provide for an appeal to the Delhi School Tribunal.

Rule 121 of the DSE Rules addresses salary and allowances following reinstatement.

The school also invoked Rule 115(4), concerning deemed suspension where a penalty is set aside and a further inquiry is decided upon.

The Court held that the alternative remedy did not bar the writ because the petitioners alleged—and the record established—non-compliance with the mandatory prior-approval requirement and a failure to conduct an inquiry before termination; the petition had also remained pending for approximately six years.

The school admitted that it had not obtained prior DoE approval, and the DoE confirmed that none had been sought.

The Court further noted that, regardless of whether notices concerning alleged absenteeism had been issued, no inquiry had been conducted against the petitioners.

It therefore found the terminations unlawful under Section 8(2).

On consequential relief, the Court concluded that the established illegality justified payment of the full salary and allowances the petitioners would have received had they not been removed.

It also directed the school to pay each petitioner full salary and allowances from 14 May 2019 onwards, within six weeks.

The petition and pending applications were disposed of accordingly.