*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 19th October, 2012
+ W.P.(C) No.3233/1999
KUNWAR DEV RAJ SINGH RAGHAV ..... Petitioner
Through: None.
Versus
LT. GOVERNOR & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Adv. for
R-1&2.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
1. None appears for the petitioner; considering that the writ petition is of the year 1999, it is not deemed expedient to await the petitioner any further. With the assistance of the counsel for the respondents the file has been perused.
2. The petitioner was working as a Yoga teacher with the respondent no.3 Hope Hall Middle School, Wazir Nagar, New Delhi - 110 003, an aided school, since 16th July, 1986; during the said employment he did his Post Graduation in History in the year 1988 and thereafter acquired B.Ed. qualification in the year 1989 and got the said qualifications entered in the W.P.(C) No.3233/1999 Page 1 of 7 service record; it is his case that having acquired the qualification of M.A., B.Ed. he was eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Headmaster/PGT; that he had already been taking classes in the subjects of History, Hindi, Social Studies etc. in the school in addition to Yoga teaching and for this reason also was fully equipped to be considered for promotion to the post of Headmaster/PGT and is also eligible for the said post as per the Recruitment Rules (RRs) of the respondents; that on 28th February, 1999 the post of Headmaster fell vacant and a DPC was convened on 9th March, 1999 and though the petitioner was in the list of probable candidates, but his candidature was rejected without consideration on the plea that being a Yoga teacher he cannot be considered for promotion to the post of Headmaster/PGT and the respondent no.4 Smt. Sneh Tuli was recommended for the said post and promoted as Headmistress; that his representation was also rejected. This petition was filed impugning the minutes of the DPC meeting held on 9th March, 1999 and the appointment of the respondent no.4 to the post of Headmistress and seeking a direction for consideration of the petitioner for appointment to the said post.
3. Rule was issued in the petition on 24th May, 1999.
W.P.(C) No.3233/1999 Page 2 of 7
4. The respondents no.1&2 i.e. GNCTD and the Directorate of Education in their counter affidavit have pleaded that Yoga teachers even if acquire the Post Graduate qualification, are not entitled to be promoted to the post of Headmaster or PGT (except PGT Physical Sciences) and as per Notification dated 4th November, 1999 only the Trained Graduate Teachers (TGT) possessing the Post Graduate Diploma of two years duration with five years of regular service in the grade are to be considered; that though under the earlier Rule notified on 26th February, 1996, TGTs in miscellaneous categories were also to be considered for promotion to other categories subject to fulfillment of educational qualifications for the post, but the same had created a number of difficulties in implementation and was also found to be in violation of the orders of the Government of India that TGTs in their own subject and Language Teachers in language concerned alone should be promoted and if the cadres are combined it created enormous administrative problems like fixing of inter se seniority; thus the Rules notified on 26th February, 1996 were never implemented and were kept in abeyance and finally the new Rules vide Notification dated 4th November, 1999 were brought. It is further pleaded that even if a Yoga teacher takes any general classes occasionally, it would not confer on him/her the status of a teacher of W.P.(C) No.3233/1999 Page 3 of 7 other subjects. It is yet further pleaded that though the post of Headmaster is a promotional post but promotion cannot be given merely on the basis of seniority and in the absence of eligibility qualifications.
5. The petitioner filed a rejoinder to the aforesaid counter affidavit pleading that the Notification of 4th November, 1999 had no relevance; that the Notification of 26th February, 1996 had been implemented; instances of three Yoga teachers who were promoted as PGTs including in other subjects were given.
6. The respondent no.3 School in its counter affidavit challenged the very maintainability of the writ petition. It was also pleaded that the appointment of the respondent no.4 was in accordance with the RRs which had not been challenged; else the contents of the counter affidavit of the respondents No. 1 and 2 were reiterated. It was also the plea that the post of a Headmaster is a selection post and no interference with the selection made was called for.
7. The petitioner filed a rejoinder to the said counter affidavit also. W.P.(C) No.3233/1999 Page 4 of 7
8. Though a rejoinder by the petitioner to the counter affidavit of the respondent no.4 is on record but no counter affidavit of the respondent no.4 is found on the file.
9. On the application of the petitioner for interim relief, vide order dated 28th November, 2002 it was directed that promotion made will be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. On 17th March, 2003, the order records, the petitioner stated that the respondent no.4 was retiring on 30 th April, 2003; a direction was sought for consideration of his name for promotion. This Court however ordered that in case the petitioner is eligible according to the Rules for promotion to the post of Headmaster, he be considered along with the other candidates. It appears that the petitioner was again not appointed and a fresh application was filed on 16th April, 2004 whereon it was directed that the appointment to the post of Headmaster would be subject to further orders in the writ petition. The petitioner filed yet another application being CM No.1168/2010 seeking to restrain the respondent no.3 School from promoting any person to the post of Headmaster till final decision of the writ petition; it was also pleaded that vide order dated 30 th November, 2007 the petitioner had been assigned the duty of Officiating Head Master till regular W.P.(C) No.3233/1999 Page 5 of 7 Headmaster/Headmistress was appointed. The said relief was also however declined to the petitioner.
10. The counsel for the respondents no.1&2 has been heard. She has drawn attention to page 21 of the paper book being the RRs dated 19 th May, 1976 for the post of Headmaster/Headmistress of Middle Schools under the Directorate of Education to show, that the post is a selection post and the method of recruitment is by promotion failing which by direct recruitment; that in case of recruitment by promotion, it is the TGT, Language Teachers, having five years regular service in the grade who are eligible. Mrs. Ahlawat counsel for the respondents no.1&2 has contended that Trained Language Teachers are teachers in a subject like English, Hindi, Math, Science, History etc. and would not include Yoga. Attention is also invited to the Notification dated 26th February, 1996 supra vide which in Column No.11, the words Yoga/Music/Drawing teachers were included but which were subsequently excluded vide Notification of 4th November, 1999.
11. I am satisfied with the stand of the respondents that the petitioner being a Yoga teacher was not entitled to be considered for the post of Headmaster. Moreover, no challenge to the Rules aforesaid has been made. W.P.(C) No.3233/1999 Page 6 of 7 It may further be highlighted that the post is a selection post and even if the petitioner were to be held to be eligible, no error calling for interference can be found in the decision of the respondents of selecting a teacher in subjects like Science, English, Hindi, History etc., even if junior to the petitioner over the petitioner for the said post.
There is thus no merit in the petition; the same is dismissed. No costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J OCTOBER 19, 2012 pp W.P.(C) No.3233/1999 Page 7 of 7