Mr. Viraj Datar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Neha Warrier, Mr. Jeevesh Mehta and Mr v. POORNA PRAJNA PUBLIC SCHOOL & ORS

Judgment

1. The petitioner, by way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenges an order dated 12.06.2024 by which he has been transferred from the post of Principal of respondent No. 1 – Poorna Prajna Public School, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 110070 [“PPPS-VK”] to the post of Principal of a sister School, namely – Poorna Prajna Education Centre Sangameshwarpet, Chikmagalur, Karnataka [“PPEC”]. A. FACTS: 2. PPPS-VK is an unaided private school established in the year 1987. It was recognised by the Directorate of Education, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi [“DoE”] in the year 1994. The Signature Not Verified Signed By:BHUPENDER Signing Date:21.05.2025 19:48:41 W.P.(C) 8742/2024 petitioner was appointed as PGT-Physical Education in PPPS-VK in the year 1999. Although the said appointment letter is not on record, it is

stated in the writ petition1, and not disputed in the counter affidavit, that the appointment letter did not contain a transfer clause. 3. The petitioner was designated as Coordinator up to the secondary level by an office order dated 12.01.2009, and appointed as Vice Principal by an order dated 16.09.2011. He was thereafter promoted to the post of Principal by a communication dated 23.04.2012. 4. Both the office order dated 16.09.2011 and the communication dated 23.04.2012, provide for transfer to any other institution run by the Udupi Sri Admar Matt Education Council, Sadashiva Nagar, Bangaluru – respondent No. 2. 5. By the impugned transfer order dated 12.06.2024, the petitioner was transferred to PPEC which, like PPPS-VK is run by respondent No.

2. The petitioner’s representation dated 17.06.2024 to the DoE against the transfer order dated 12.06.2024, has not been answered, resulting in the present writ petition. B. SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL: 6. Mr. Viraj Datar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that transfer of a teacher from Delhi to any place outside Delhi, even a sister concern of the employer school, is impermissible, as the employee would stand to lose the protection of the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 [“DSEAR”]. He submitted that this position has been clearly established in the judgments of this Court in 1 Paragraph 4. Signature Not Verified Signed By:BHUPENDER Signing Date:21.05.2025 19:48:41 W.P.(C) 8742/2024 Anjana Sharma and Ors. v. Shishu Bharti Vidyalaya and Ors2. and Jitender Singh Tyagi v. Director of Education and Ors3. He also drew my attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Raj Soni v. Air officer Incharge Administration and Anr4, to submit that the DSEAR is applicable to all schools in Delhi. Mr. Datar further pointed out that the stand of the DoE, recorded in its order dated 22.06.2006 in the case of DAV Schools, was categorical to the effect that no such transfer outside Delhi was permissible. 7. In addition to this legal submission, Mr. Datar submitted that the petitioner is being transferred from the post of Principal in a school which runs up to Class XII, to a school which only goes up to Class X, which constitutes a demotion and punishment. According to Mr. Datar, this has been occasioned by a writ petition filed in this Court by some of the teachers of PPPS-VK seeking payment of salary and arrears in consonance with the recommendation of the 7th Central Pay Commission. Mr. Datar submitted that the petitioner did not accede to the demand of respondent No. 2, the School management, that the said teachers should be pressurised into withdrawing their writ petitions. 8. Mr. Amarjit Singh Bedi, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, first submitted that the petitioner’s grievances were not amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, relying upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in St. Mary's Education Society and Anr. v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and Ors5. and Army Welfare

stated in the writ petition1, and not disputed in the counter affidavit, that the appointment letter did not contain a transfer clause. 3. The petitioner was designated as Coordinator up to the secondary level by an office order dated 12.01.2009, and appointed as Vice Principal by an order dated 16.09.2011. He was thereafter promoted to the post of Principal by a communication dated 23.04.2012. 4. Both the office order dated 16.09.2011 and the communication dated 23.04.2012, provide for transfer to any other institution run by the Udupi Sri Admar Matt Education Council, Sadashiva Nagar, Bangaluru – respondent No. 2. 5. By the impugned transfer order dated 12.06.2024, the petitioner was transferred to PPEC which, like PPPS-VK is run by respondent No.

2. The petitioner’s representation dated 17.06.2024 to the DoE against the transfer order dated 12.06.2024, has not been answered, resulting in the present writ petition. B. SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL: 6. Mr. Viraj Datar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that transfer of a teacher from Delhi to any place outside Delhi, even a sister concern of the employer school, is impermissible, as the employee would stand to lose the protection of the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 [“DSEAR”]. He submitted that this position has been clearly established in the judgments of this Court in 1 Paragraph 4. Signature Not Verified Signed By:BHUPENDER Signing Date:21.05.2025 19:48:41 W.P.(C) 8742/2024 Anjana Sharma and Ors. v. Shishu Bharti Vidyalaya and Ors2. and Jitender Singh Tyagi v. Director of Education and Ors3. He also drew my attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Raj Soni v. Air officer Incharge Administration and Anr4, to submit that the DSEAR is applicable to all schools in Delhi. Mr. Datar further pointed out that the stand of the DoE, recorded in its order dated 22.06.2006 in the case of DAV Schools, was categorical to the effect that no such transfer outside Delhi was permissible. 7. In addition to this legal submission, Mr. Datar submitted that the petitioner is being transferred from the post of Principal in a school which runs up to Class XII, to a school which only goes up to Class X, which constitutes a demotion and punishment. According to Mr. Datar, this has been occasioned by a writ petition filed in this Court by some of the teachers of PPPS-VK seeking payment of salary and arrears in consonance with the recommendation of the 7th Central Pay Commission. Mr. Datar submitted that the petitioner did not accede to the demand of respondent No. 2, the School management, that the said teachers should be pressurised into withdrawing their writ petitions. 8. Mr. Amarjit Singh Bedi, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, first submitted that the petitioner’s grievances were not amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, relying upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in St. Mary's Education Society and Anr. v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and Ors5. and Army Welfare