Post facto approval cannot validate a school closure made without prior approval under Rule 46.

The petitioner challenged the post facto approval granted on 9 March 2011 for closure of M.S. Public School, Tri Nagar, contending that it violated Rule 46 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973.

The Directorate of Education’s records showed that approval for closure with effect from 1 April 2009 was granted only in March 2011; the Court also found no record that the Director had consulted the Delhi School Education Advisory Board.

The respondent school’s counsel accepted that the issue was covered by prior decisions, including Vishwajyoti v. Virender Kumar Sardana.

Whether the school’s closure could lawfully take effect when the Director’s approval was granted only after the closure.

Whether directions concerning determination and payment of staff dues, and reconsideration of the closure application, should apply to this petition.

Rule 46 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 prohibits the managing committee of a recognised school from closing the school without full justification and the Director’s prior approval; before granting approval, the Director must consult the Advisory Board.

Section 22 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 provides for the Delhi School Education Advisory Board.

The Court applied the directions in Vishwajyoti v. Virender Kumar Sardana, including directions for employee-wise calculation and payment of dues, a reasoned decision on the closure application, and consideration of regulatory action.

The original Directorate records established that approval was granted after the school had already closed, contrary to Rule 46’s requirement of prior approval.

Although the record also did not show consultation with the Advisory Board, the Court considered the absence of prior approval decisive for this petition.

Given the parties’ agreement to follow Vishwajyoti, the Court applied that decision’s directions to address the consequences of the unlawful closure, including staff dues and fresh consideration of the closure application.

It directed that the relevant directions and timelines in Vishwajyoti apply mutatis mutandis to the parties, and disposed of the petition.