Initially, the school had 130 students and a modest staff, receiving a substantial 95% of its funding from the NDMC. However, as time passed, the building deteriorated, and the DSGMC sought to relocate the school to Mata Sundari College, which fell outside NDMC’s jurisdiction. This proposed shift was met with resistance from the school's staff, who filed writ petitions in the High Court, leading to an interim stay order that prohibited the relocation.

Despite the stay, DSGMC proceeded with demolishing significant parts of the school building, rendering it non-functional. Consequently, NDMC withdrew its grant-in-aid, arguing it was obligated to support only schools within its territorial jurisdiction.

The Delhi High Court subsequently ordered NDMC to assess whether an ex-post facto sanction could be granted for the school's closure. However, NDMC determined that such approval could not be given, leading to the withdrawal of recognition and cessation of funding for the school.

In response, the affected staff filed new writ petitions seeking reemployment and compensation, which resulted in a ruling from a Single Judge of the High Court. This ruling mandated NDMC to issue a detailed order regarding the status of the school and required DSGMC to continue paying salaries to its staff until a final decision was reached.

Following appeals from the school staff, the Division Bench of the High Court ultimately ordered NDMC to settle salary arrears and facilitate employment for the staff at government or government-aided schools. Notably, it emphasized that DSGMC would be responsible for reimbursing NDMC for any funds disbursed under the court's directive.

Several critical findings emerged from the case:

Unlawful Demolition: DSGMC's demolition of the school building occurred despite a clear court order prohibiting such actions.

Withdrawal of Recognition: NDMC’s decision to withdraw funding was legally justified, given the unauthorized closure of the school.

Responsibility for Staff Salaries: The court established that while NDMC would initially cover the staff's salaries, DSGMC bore the ultimate responsibility for reimbursement due to its failure to adhere to regulatory requirements for closing the school.

The appeals primarily examined whether DSGMC could validly challenge the High Court’s ruling that placed the financial burden of staff compensation on NDMC. DSGMC argued that NDMC should assume responsibility for reabsorbing the staff in government schools, citing relevant education rules. However, the court clarified that any closure must comply with established legal protocols, including obtaining prior approval from the education director. Since DSGMC had not followed these procedures, it could not evade responsibility.

The legal battle highlights significant implications for the governance of educational institutions and the responsibilities of managing bodies in India. The court's decisions reaffirmed the importance of adhering to procedural regulations in school management and underscored the accountability of educational authorities in safeguarding the rights and benefits of teaching staff. As the NDMC and DSGMC navigate the aftermath of this ruling, the case serves as a crucial precedent for similar disputes in the future.