Unilateral cessation of school operations without prior statutory approval does not constitute lawful closure or extinguish salary liabilities.

The consolidated petitions involve teachers and staff of Dayanand Adarsh Vidyalaya, Tilak Nagar, seeking arrears of salary under the 7th Central Pay Commission (w.e.f. 01.01.2016) and continued emoluments post-April 2020

On 01.04.2020, the school management unilaterally ceased operations, citing financial unviability, falling student strength, and an un-approved closure request dated 17.07.2019

The Petitioners contended that since the Directorate of Education (DoE) never granted formal approval for closure under Rule 46 of the Delhi School Education Rules (DSER), the school continued to exist in law, making the management liable for ongoing salaries

Conversely, the school argued that it possessed no assets and that liability could not be shifted to the parent society (Arya Samaj/Delhi Arya Pratinidhi Sabha)

1. Whether a recognized school can be treated as closed in law merely because the management unilaterally stopped functioning and discontinued classes without prior approval from the Directorate of Education?

2. Whether the Petitioners are entitled to be treated as continuing in service after 01.04.2020, and whether the obligation to pay salaries survives the factual shutdown?

3. Whether liability for service dues can be extended beyond the school to the society, managing committee, or parent body that exercised effective control over the institution?

The court applied Section 3 of the Delhi School Education Act (DSEA), which mandates that the closing of classes is subject to the Act and Rules

Section 4 of the DSEA establishes financial stability and regular salary payment as continuing conditions of recognition

Rule 46 of the DSER explicitly prohibits the managing committee from closing a school without "prior approval" of the Director

The court further relied on NDMC Anr. v. Manju Tomar Ors. (2024 SCC OnLine SC 2272), which held that closure de hors Rule 46 is invalid and management cannot use such illegality to shift the burden of staff salaries

Section 20 of the DSEA was cited to establish that the government can take over management even if the school building is owned by a third party

The court reasoned that "closure in law" is distinct from "stoppage in fact." Under Rule 46, the insistence on prior approval is mandatory to protect the interests of students and staff; thus, a unilateral lock-out does not extinguish statutory service rights

The court rejected the school’s plea of financial distress, noting that financial stability is a regulatory condition that cannot be bypassed by administrative fait accompli

Regarding the reach of liability, the court observed that the DSEA does not view a school as an isolated unit but as an enterprise under a managing committee subject to the control of a trust or society

Relying on Anjna Sharma v. Shishu Bharti Vidyalaya, the court held that where a school is part of a society-run network, the liability rests with the parent entity from its total accruals

However, the court found the existing record inconclusive regarding whether "Arya Samaj (Regd.) Tilak Nagar" or "Delhi Arya Pratinidhi Sabha" held effective control, necessitating a factual determination by the DoE

Primary liability rests with the school, while joint and several liability extends to the entity found to be in "effective management and control"

The Director of Education is directed to identify the controlling entity within eight weeks

A nominated officer shall compute Petitioner-wise dues (including 6% interest) within eight weeks of claims being filed

For employees who neither resigned nor retired, salary must be paid month-to-month until a lawful closure under Rule 46 occurs

The Director must decide on the pending closure application within ten weeks, ensuring all dues are paid or secured before any approval is granted