TEAM CODE: R-04

BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

RAHUL AND ANJALI………………………………………………...PETITIONER

V.

FLOWER GLOBAL SCHOOL………………………………………RESPONDENT

PETITION NO .........../2018

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS

S
COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

MEMORIAL DRAWN AND SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………………………03

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………….04

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………….06

STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………………………07

STATEMENT OF ISSUES…………………………………………………………08

SUMMARY ARGUMENTS………………………………………………………..09

ADVANCED ARGUMENTS……………………………………………………….10

1. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITON FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER

ART.32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA MAINTAINABLE?

2. WHETHER THE ACT CONDUCTED BY THE TEACHERS FALLS UNDER THE

DEFINITION OF MORAL TURPITUDE?

3. WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN A BREACH OF CONTRACTUAL TERMS AND

CODE OF CONDUCT BY THE TEACHERS AND THE SCHOOL IS JUSTIFIED
IN IMPOSING PENALITIES AND TAKING ACTIONS AGAINST THEM?

PRAYER………………………………………………………………………………..22

2
 INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

Abbreviation Expansion
& And

IPC Indian Penal Code

ICA Indian Contract Act
PVT. Private
DSER The Delhi School Education Rules Act
ACC. According
COI Constitution of India
Sec. Section
Hon’ble Honourable
V. or v/s Versus
Art. Article
Dept. Department
Nov November
Jan January

3
 INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

1. Shri Datta Shikshan Prasarak vs Shri Dinkar Krishna Gawde 29 August, 2006

2.Shri Ram Mishra and Anr. vs. Chief General Manager and Anr. (01.09.2006 - CGHC):
MANU/CG/0205/2006

3. Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association (AHAR) and Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra
and Ors. (17.01.2019 - SC) : MANU/SC/0045/2019

4. Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (1996) 4 SCC 17: AIR 1996 SC 3300

5.Sushil Kumar Singhal v. Punjab National Bank, (2010) 8 SCC 573

6.State of Haryana and Another Vs. Ved Kaur[Civil Appeal No. 6066 of 2017 arising out of
SLP (Civil) No.21622 of 2015]

7.Prof. Shashikant B. Kulkarni vs The Principal, BPCS College of Physical Education and
Ors. Writ petition No. 2011 of 2006.

8. Smt. Ujjam Bai vs State of Uttar Pradesh (1962) AIR 1621, 1963 SCR (1) 778.

9. Som Prakash v. Union of India, AIR (1981) SC 212.

10. Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Union of India, (2002) 5 SCC 111

11. K. Morappan v. Dy. Registrar of Co-operative Society; (2006) 4 MLJ 641.

12. Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohanlal, AIR (1967) SC 1857.

13. State of Gujarat v. Shantilal, AIR (1969) SC 634 (643)

14. Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical bio, (2002) 5 SCC 111.

15.R.D. Shetty v/s International Airport Authority1979 SCR (3)1014.

16. Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981) 1 SCC 722

4
 INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

17.Dr. J.N. P&ey’s the COI, Pg. No. 62-63 48th Edition., Central Law Agency,

18. Morrison v. State Board of Education, Supreme Court of California, United States (20
December 1969)

 Books:
1.R.K. Bangia, Law of contract-I, 6th Edition
2.M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law

 Statutes:
1. Constitution of India, 1950
2. Indian Contract Act, 1872
3. The Delhi School Education Rules, 1973

5
 INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE PETITIONER HAS APPROACHED THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT

OF INDIA UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION BY FILING
THE WRIT PETITION UNDER ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION OF THIS
HONOURABLE COURT.

6
 INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Flower global school is a residential school situated in Delhi MCR. Mr Rahul is a

widely reputed Biology teacher. Mrs Anjali, mathematics teacher and is married to Mr
Aman who is a lawyer at SC. The two teachers can be seen working together, late night
for the task assigned to them for organising the school’s extra-curricular.
2. All the teachers were required to sign an employment agreement as well as sign the
appendices which included code of conduct to be followed by teachers. One of the
clauses in this code of conduct stated that “Teachers and staff members of the school are
subjected to immediate removal for acts of moral turpitude at the discretion of the
school board. Such removal may be accompanied with a penalty amounting to not more
than 6 month’s salary of the person concerned.”
3. Rajeev a 10th class student he conceals a video camera in the laboratory, so that he can
cheat by having access beforehand. On the night of 30thNov 2018 Anjali walks into the
laboratory lock it from the inside where Rahul was watching erotic movie Anjali
confronts her sexual dissatisfaction from her husband. Later, Rahul & Anjali get
involved in sexual relationship. Rajeev discovers that illicit sexual relationship between
Rahul & Anjali and informed the same to his parents. Rajeev’s parents demanded
immediate removal of the teachers. The decision was taken to remove and impose a
penalty amounting to six months of their respective salaries the same would be effective
from 1st Jan 2019.
4. Rahul & Anjali filled a writ petition before the SC against the school alleging that they
had invaded their fundamental right to privacy and refuted the imposition of penalty by
the school as being an unfair contractual term. In its reply, the school claims that the
illicit and immoral act were conducted on school property and was committed in a place
space and amounted to the breach of Contractual obligation that Rahul & Anjali had
agreed to signing their employment agreement.

7
 INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITON FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER ART.32

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA MAINTAINABLE?

2. WHETHER THE ACT CONDUCTED BY THE TEACHERS FALLS UNDER THE

DEFINITION OF MORAL TURPITUDE?

3. WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN A BREACH OF CONTRACTUAL TERMS AND

CODE OF CONDUCT BY THE TEACHERS AND THE SCHOOL IS JUSTIFIED IN

IMPOSING PENALITIES AND TAKING ACTIONS AGAINST THEM?

8
 INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

SUMMARY ARGUMENTS

1.WHETHER THE WRIT PETITON FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER ART.32

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA MAINTAINABLE?

The respondent contends that the petition is not maintainable under Art. 32 of the COI as
it can only be filed against the state and not a private individual or body. And also, it can
be filed only when there is a violation of any fundamental right enumerated in Part III of
the Constitution. Since the immoral act committed by the teachers was done in a school
that is deemed to be a public space, there was no violation of right to privacy of the
petitioners.

2.WHETHER THE ACT CONDUCTED BY THE TEACHERS FALLS UNDER THE

DEFINITION OF MORAL TURPITUDE?

Moral turpitude is a legal concept that refers to any conduct that is believed to be
contrary to the community standards of honesty, justice, or good moral values. In the
current case the act committed by the teachers falls under the definition of moral
turpitude as they committed an act of immorality which is against the principles of their
profession and lowers its dignity.

3.WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN A BREACH OF CONTRACTUAL TERMS AND

CODE OF CONDUCT BY THE TEACHERS AND THE SCHOOL IS JUSTIFIED IN
IMPOSING PENALITIES AND TAKING ACTIONS AGAINST THEM?

The respondent submits that the teachers had sign the contractual agreement for the
maintainability of the code of conduct as mentioned, and due to its non-adherence, the
immediate removal of the teachers initiated was absolutely correct and justified.

9
 INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1.WHETHER THE WRIT PETITON FILED UNDER ART.32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA MAINTAINABLE?

1.1 SCHOOL TO BE CONSIDERED AS STATE OR NOT?

‘STATE DEFINED’

Under Art. 12 of Part III (FR) of the Indian Constitution, “State” is defined. In this Part,
unless the context otherwise requires, “the State” includes the Government & Parliament of India
& the Govt & the Legislature of each States & all local or other authorities within the territory of
India or under the control of the Govt of India1. The definition in Art. 12 is only for the purpose of
application of the provisions contained in Part III of our constitution.

In the case of Ujjam Bai v. State of U. P2, the SC of India observed that Art. 12 winds up the list
of authorities falling within the definition by referring to “other authorities” within the territory of
India which cannot, obviously, be read as ejusdem generis with either the Government or the
Legislature or Local authorities. The word “State” is of wide magnitude& capable of
comprehending every authority created under the act& functioning within the territory of India.
There is no character of the nature of authority set up under a statute for the purpose of
administering laws enacted by the Parliament or by the State including those vested with the duty
to make decisions in order to implement those laws.

The main considerations for pronouncing an entity as a State agency or instrumentality are:

 Financial resources of the state being the Chief funding source;

 The functional character being governmental in essence;

 Plenary control residing in government; prior history of the same activity having been carried on
by the government & made over to the new body; some element of authority or command.

1
D.J. De’s COI of India, Asia Law House, 133 (1949)
2
UJJAM Bai v. State of U.P. AIR (1962) S.C 1621
10
 INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

 Whether the legal person is a corporation and created by a statute, as distinguished from under a
statute, is not an important criterion although it may be vindictive3.

When the body is financially, functionally & administratively dominated by or under the
control of the government & such control is particular to the body & is pervasive, then it will
be “State” within Art. 12. If the control is merely regulatory, it will not be a State4.

DEFINITION OF AUTHORITY

Basically ‘authority’ means a person or body exercising power or having a legal right to
command& be obeyed. An ‘Authority’ is a group of persons with official responsibility for a
particular area of activity & having a moral or legal right or ability to control others. If a particular
cooperative society can be characterized as a “State” under Art. 12, it would also be “an
authority” within the meaning of Art. 226 of the Indian Constitution 5.“Authority” means a public
administrative agency or corporation having quasi-governmental powers & authorized to
administer a revenue producing public enterprise. It is wide enough to include all bodies created
by a statute on which powers are conferred to carry out governmental or quasi-governmental
functions6. The word “State” & “Authority” used in Art. 12 remain among “the great generalities
of the Indian Constitution” the content of which has been & continues to be applied by Courts
from time to time7.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES WITHIN THE AMBIT OF INDIAN TERRITORY

Local authorities are under the exclusive control of the States, by virtue of entry 5 of List II of
the 7th Schedule. That entry contains a list of some local authorities. This expression will,
therefore, include a Municipal Committee; a Panchayat; a Port Trust; Municipality is a “State”
within the meaning of Art. 12. But that does not mean that the authorities are State Government
or Central Government & there is a distinction between State & Government.

3
Som Prakash v. Union of India, AIR (1981) SC 212.
4
Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Union of India, (2002) 5 SCC 111
5
K. Morappan v. Dy. Registrar of Co-operative Society; (2006) 4 MLJ 641.
6
Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohanlal, AIR (1967) SC 1857.
7
Pradeep, supra note 6
11
 INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

In Union of India v/s R.C. Jain8, to be considered a “local authority”, an authority must fulfil the
following tests-

1) Separate legal existence.

2) Function in a defined area.

3) Has the power to raise funds.

4) Enjoys autonomy.

5) Entrusted by a statute with functions which are usually entrusted to municipalities.

It refers to authorities other than those of local self- government, who have the power to make
rules, regulations, etc. having the force of law. “Instrumentality” & “agency” are the two terms,
which to some extent overlap in their meaning. The basic & essential distinction between an
“instrumentality or agency” of the State & “other authorities” has to be borne in mind. An
‘Authority’ must be authority sui juris within the meaning of the expression “other authorities”
under Art. 12. A juridical entity, though an authority may also ratify the list of being an
instrumentality or agency of the state in which event such authority may be held to be an
instrumentality or agency of State, but not vice versa9.

In the case of R.D. Shetty v/s International Airport Authority10, the Court laid down five tests to
be considered “other authority”:

1) Entire share capital is owned or managed by State.

2) Enjoys monopoly status.

3) Department of Government is transferred to Corporation.

4) Functional character governmental in essence.

5) Deep

& pervasive State control.

8
State of Gujarat v. Shantilal, AIR (1969) SC 634 (643)
9
Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical bio, (2002) 5 SCC 111.
10
R.D.Shetty v/s International Airport Authority1979 SCR (3)1014.
12
 INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

6) Object of Authority

In the case of Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi11, It has been held that whether a
statutory body falling within the purview of the expression “other authorities” is to be
considered differently. In the opinion of the minority, the tests laid down, in this case, are
relevant only for the purpose of determining whether an entity is an “instrumentality or agency
of the State”. “other authorities” is wide enough to include all authorities created by the COI.
The expression ‘other authorities’ will include all COI or statutory authorities on whom powers
are conferred for the purpose of promoting economic activities. It is not only confined to
statutory corporations alone but may include a government company, a registered society, or
bodies having nexus with the government12.

A person can file a writ petition for the infringement of his fundamental rights under Art. 32
of the Indian constitution only against the state and not a private individual or body. The
school “ Flower Global School” does not fall within the ambit and definition of state
provided above and thus can be inferred that it is a private body. So, the writ filed by the
petitioners under art. 32 of the COI is not maintainable.

1.2 RIGHT TO PRIVACY

Life and personal liberty are inalienable rights . These are rights which are inseparable from a
dignified human existence. The dignity of the individual, equality between human beings and
the quest for liberty are the foundational pillars of the Indian Constitution. Life and personal
liberty were not creations of the Constitution. These rights were recognised by the
Constitution as inhering in each individual as an intrinsic and inseparable part of the human
element which dwells within. Privacy is a constitutionally protected right which emerges
primarily from the guarantee of life and personal liberty in Article 21 of the Constitution.
Elements of privacy also arise in varying contexts from the other facets of freedom and
dignity recognised and guaranteed by the fundamental rights contained in Part III.13

11
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors. Etc on 13 Nov, 1980 Equivalent Citations: 1981 AIR 487,
1981SCR (2) 79
12
Dr. J.N. P&ey’s The COI of India, Pg. No. 62-63 48th Edition., Central Law Agency,
13
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) vs Union of India on 26 September, 2018
13
 INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

It goes without saying that no legal right can be absolute. Every right has limitations. This
aspect of the matter was conceded at the bar. Therefore, even a fundamental right to privacy
has limitations. The limitations were to be identified on case to case basis depending upon the
nature of the privacy interest claimed. There were different standards of review to test
infractions of fundamental rights. While the concept of reasonableness overarches Part III, it
operates differently across Articles (even if only slightly differently across some of them).
Having emphatically interpreted the Constitution's liberty guarantee to contain a fundamental
right of privacy, it was necessary to outline the manner in which such a right to privacy could
be limited.14

Teachers enjoy limited rights to personal privacy, though courts will often support
disciplinary action taken by a school district when a teacher’s private life affects the integrity
of the school district or the effectiveness by which a teacher can teach. Thus, for example, a
teacher may be terminated from his or her position for such acts as adultery or other sexual
conduct outside marriage.15

In the current case, the school was the workplace for the teachers and the office provided to
Mr. Rahul was for the work purpose of school where he did not have right to privacy and
could not perform any act of such private nature. So, the immoral act performed by them was
done in a public space as it was a residential school where any other person can also have
access. Taking in consideration the reasonableness attached to the right, it can be inferred that
there is no violation of the fundamental rights of the teacher as they were not entitled to use
school property for such personal and immoral act. One cannot expect such extent of right to
privacy at a public space.

1. Right to privacy is not an absolute right - The right to privacy is not an absolute right.

Acc to article 21 '' that although the right to privacy is a fundamental right under art 21
of the Constitution but it is not an absolute right and restrictions can be impose on it for
the prevention of crime, disorder or protection of health or moral or protection of right
or freedom of other.”

14
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) vs Union of India on 26 September, 2018

14
 INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

In Case Mr. X v hospital Z- in this case the court held that although the right to privacy is
fundamental right under article 21 but it is not an absolute right and restriction can be
imposed on it. As such when the patient was found to be a HIV (+) the disclosure was not
violative of either the rule of confidentiality or the patient's right privacy as the lady with
whom the patient was likely to be married was saved by such disclosure or else she too would
have been infected with the dreadful disease if the marriage had taken place.
So as in this case there is no violation of fundamental right so in the instant case there is no
breach or violation of right to privacy because the appellant has done the act which is
immoral.

Morrison v state board of education 16–

At the conclusion of the hearing, the hearing examiner found that plaintiff has engaged in acts
of sexual intercourse and oral copulation with men other than her husband. As she has
engaged in immoral and unprofessional conduct, in acts involving moral turpitude, and in
acts evidencing her unfitness for service. Accordingly, the hearing examiner concluded that
cause exists for the revocation of her life diploma.
A person can file a writ petition in the SC of India only on the infringement of the
fundamental rights and as proved above, in the current case, fundamental right of the teachers
was not infringed. So, the writ is not maintainable in the court.

16 Morrison v. State Board of Education, Supreme Court of California, United States (20 December 1969 )
15
 INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

2.WHETHER THE ACT CONDUCTED BY THE TEACHERS FALLS UNDER THE

DEFINITION OF MORAL TURPITUDE?

2.1The respondent humbly submits that the act conducted by the teachers on the school
property was illicit and immoral.

2.1.1Acc to the facts of the case, on the night of 30th Nov, 2018, while Rahul is working in
his office, Anjali walks in and locks the laboratory from inside confronts about her sexual
dissatisfaction from her husband. Later, Rahul and Anjali got involved in sexual relationship.

2.2 In the employment agreement signed by the teachers, contains a clause which states that
“Teachers and staff members of the school are subject to immediate removal for the acts of
moral turpitude, at the discretion of school board. Such removal may be accompanied with
a penalty amounting to not more than 6 month’s salary of the person concerned.”

2.2.1The teachers who are supposed to be mentors for the students are breaking the code of
conduct, performing such immoral and illicit act in the school premises which will definitely
impact badly. The situation demanded an urgent meeting and the unanimous decision taken
by the School board that the teachers to be removed and the penalty so imposed is accurate.

2.3 Definition - Moral Turpitude17 is an expression which is used in legal as also societal
parlance to describe conduct which is inherently base, vile, depraved or having any
connection showing depravity.

In Shri Datta ShikshanPrasarak vs Shri Dinkar Krishna Gawde18 , the terms misconduct and
moral turpitude have been defined as under:

(a) "Misconduct" shall include the following acts, namely:

(i) breach of the terms and conditions of service laid down by or under these Rules;

(ii) violation of the code of conduct; and

(iii) any other act of similar nature

17
Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (1996) 4 SCC 17: AIR 1996 SC 3300
18
Shri Datta Shikshan Prasarak vs Shri Dinkar Krishna Gawde on 29 August, 2006Equivalent citations: 2006
(6) BomCR 695, 2006 (6) MhLj 770

16
 INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

(b) "Moral turpitude" shall include the following acts, namely:

(i) immodest or immoral behaviour with a female or male student or employee; and

(ii) any other act of similar nature.

A teacher can be removed under any of the following circumstances:

 Immoral conduct
 Incompetence
 Neglect of duty
 Substantial noncompliance with school laws
 Conviction of a crime
 Insubordination
 Fraud or misrepresentation

Rule 5019(xiv) states about the school is so conducted as to promote discipline and
orderly behaviour and to maintain a high moral tone.

115. Suspension20

The managing committee may place an employee of a recognised private school, whether
aided or not, under suspension: -
(f)where he is charged with the breach of any other code of conduct.

117. Penalties and disciplinary authority

The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons, including the breach of one or
more of the provisions of the Code of conduct, be imposed upon an employee of a
recognised private school, whether aided or not, namely:

19
The Delhi School Education Rules, 1973
20
Chapter VIII Recruitment and Terms and Conditions of Service Of Employees Of The Private Schools Other
Than Unaided Minority Schools

17
 INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Minor penalties:
censure;
recovery from pay the whole or any part of any pecuniary loss caused lo the school by
negligence or breach of orders;
withholding of increments of pay;

Major penalties:
reduction in rank;
compulsory retirement;
removal from service, which shall not be a disqualification for future employment in any
other recognised private school;
dismissal from service, which shall ordinarily be disqualification for future employment in
any aided school.

122. Employees of recognised Schools to be governed by the Code of Conduct21

Every employee of a recognised school, whether aided or not. shall be governed by

the Code of Conduct, as specified in this Chapter, and every such employee shall be
liable to the disciplinary action, specified in rule 115, for the breach of any provision
of the Code of Conduct:

Provided that in the case of an employee of an unaided minority school the penalties
for the breach of any provision of the Code of Conduct shall be as may be specified in
the contract of service between the management of the school and the concerned
employee.

123. Code of Conduct for teachers

21
Chapter IX Code of Conduct for Teachers and Other Employees

18
 INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

The Code of Conduct for the teachers of the recognised schools including unaided
minority schools, shall be as follows:
(a)No teacher shall:

(xvi)behave, or encourage or incite any student, teacher or other employee to behave, in a

rowdy or disorderly manner in the school premises;
(xvii) be guilty of, or encourage, violence, or any conduct which involves moral turpitude.
(c)every teacher shall:

(ii)abide by the rules and regulations of the school and also show due respect to the constituted
authority.
(3) The breach of any condition specified in sub-rule (1) shall be deemed to be I breach of
the Code of Conduct.
Thereby, on the basis of above arguments we submit that the act performed by the teachers amounted
to moral turpitude.

19
 INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

3.WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN A BREACH OF CONTRACTUAL TERMS AND

CODE OF CONDUCT BY THE TEACHERS AND THE SCHOOL IS JUSTIFIED IN
IMPOSING PENALITIES AND TAKING ACTIONS AGAINST THEM?

The respondent humbly submits that the act conducted by the teachers was not in adherence
to the contract as signed by them. Therefore, there has been a breach of contractual
obligation.

Acc. to sec 2(b) of the Indian contact Act 1872 '' when the person to whom the proposal
is made signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted. A proposal when
accepted become a promise ''. The person making the proposal does not become bound thereto
until its acceptance. As soon as his proposal is accepted that is known as promise, whereby
both the parties become bound. As in the instant case by signing the primary employment
agreement in the moot preposition paragraph no 2 line no 4 the appellant has given their
consent for the same. As there is a proper acceptance of proposal with the free consent of
party so the agreement is valid. As the appellant has followed the same by working upon it.

Under Section 73 of ICA, 1872 When a contract has been broken, the party who suffers
by such breach is entitled to receive, from the party who has broken the contract,
compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the
usual course of things from such breach, or which the parties knew, when they made the
contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it.

Such compensation is not to be given for any remote and indirect loss or damage
sustained by reason of the breach.

When an obligation resembling those created by contract has been incurred and has not
been discharged, any person injured by the failure to discharge it is entitled to receive
the same compensation from the party in default, as if such person had contracted to
discharge it and had broken his contract.
As per this section, Rahul and Anjali violated the contractual obligation of the same so
due to which the School’s decision in removal of the two was accurate.

20
 INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

The Rule 115 (Suspension) of DSEA, 1973 states that an employee of a recognised
private school, whether aided or not, shall be deemed to have been placed under
suspension by an order of the appointing authority.
The termination notice states that their dismissal is due to “……the adulterous nature
of their conduct amounting to a blatant violation of the School’s code of conduct” and
that their dismissal would be effective from 1st Jan 2019.

Section 74 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 Compensation for breach of contract
where penalty stipulated for: When a contract has been broken, if a sum is named in the
contract as the amount to be paid in case of such breach, or if the contract contains any other
stipulation by way of penalty, the party complaining of the breach is entitled, whether or not
actual damage or loss is proved to have been caused thereby, to receive from the party who
has broken the contract reasonable compensation not exceeding the amount so named or, as
the case may be, the penalty stipulated for.

While signing the agreement it was clearly informed by the code of conduct that “Teachers
and staff members of the School are subject to immediate removal for acts of moral
turpitude, at the discretion of the School Board. Such removal may be accompanied with a
penalty amounting to not more than 6 months’ salary of the person concerned.”

Considering the section above, School board took a unanimous decision to remove Rahul and
Anjali from the School and imposed the penalty amounting to 6 months of their respective
salary. The very same has been clearly stated in the Rule 117 of the Delhi Edu Act, 1973.

Section 75 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Party rightfully rescinding contract,
entitled to compensation. — A person who rightfully rescinds a contract is entitled to
compensation for any damage which he has sustained through the non-fulfilment of the
contract.

Thereafter, as per Sec 75 Of ICA, 1872 and acc. to the facts the act amounted to a breach of
contractual obligations that Rahul and Anjali have agreed to when signing their employment
agreements, sec mentioned above provides the authority to the school dept. to initiate the
termination notice in favour of the dismissal of the two.

We thereby conclude that the Rules and section mentioned above justifies the removal of
Rahul and Anjali.

21
 INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

PRAYER

Therefore, in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, authorities cited & arguments
advanced, it is most humbly & respectfully requested to this Hon’ble Court to adjudge
and declare that:

1. The writ filed by the petitioners is not maintainable in this honourable court of law.
2. The fundamental right to privacy of the teachers has not been violated by the school.
3. The act committed by the teachers amounted to moral turpitude.
4. The school is justified in taking actions of termination and imposing penalties on the
teachers.

AND

Pass any other order that it may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity & good conscience.

All of which is humbly prayed

Counsel for the Respondent

22
INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

23