Arvind Bhatia & Ors. vs Delhi Administration
1999 Latest Caselaw 291 Del

ORDER

K. Ramamoorthy, J.

1. The writ petitioners are working under the Management of the third respondent, which runs a group of schools. On the 11th of January, 1990, The Director of Education, Delhi had issued a circular with reference to maintaining seniority of employees of recognised Govt. aided schools which run by the same trust/society. The Circular reads as under:-

"Sub: Seniority of employees of recognised Govt. aided schools run by same trust/society.

In supersession of previous instructions on the above subject the following instructions are issued for compliance by all the managing committees of recognised Govt aided schools in the Union territory of Delhi except in those cases where there are orders to the contrary by any court of law:-

1. The seniority of employees of the Govt. aided schools run by the same society/trust shall be common for purpose of promotion and other related matters.

2. So far as the management of each school is concerned, common members of managing committee on behalf of the society shall remain the same but the representatives of teachers, PTA as well as nominee of the Director of Education and Nominees of Advisory Board shall be different for each school under the same management.

Accordingly all the managing committees of the Government aided schools may kindly take note of the same and whenever the society trust have more than one aided schools, they should comply with the said instructions."

2. The petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-

"In view of the humble submissions made in the foregoing paras, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue:-

(i) An appropriate writ or writs or orders to make the directions contained in the impugned circular NO.110-510 dated 11th Jan., 1990 issued by the Director of Education applicable to the Employee of all the recognised unaided private schools run by the same society or trust in the matter of preparation of a common seniority roster of all the employees for the purpose of promotion and related matters including the recognised-unaided schools run by respondent No.3.

(ii) a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to respondent No.1 and 2 to remove the existing anomalies in the impugned circular so as to make the directions uniformly applicable to all the employees of recognised private schools, whether aided or unaided, run by the same society or trust."

3. The main point raised by the petitioners is that the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act and the Rules, 1973 do not make any difference between the teachers working in the aided schools and unaided schools and when a circular had been issued with reference to aided schools, the same benefit should be given to the teachers working under the management running group of unaided schools.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms.Maninder Acharya, submitted that a reading of the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act and the Rules, 1973 would make the point clear and the Director of Education cannot discriminate between the teachers working in aided schools and those working in unaided schools. The learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms.Maninder Acharya, referred to Rule 109 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973. The same reads as under:-

Rule 109

(i) There shall be a seniority roster for each grade and the names of the employees appointed to posts in each grade shall be arranged in the roster in accordance with this rule.

(ii) Seniority of employees shall be determined by the order of merit in which they were selected for appointment to the concerned post, these selected on an earlier occasion being ranked senior to those selected later:

p> Provided that in a case where a joint seniority roster of employees of each grade common to all schools used to be maintained by the society or trust running such schools prior to the commencement of these rules, inter-se-seniority of all employees of such schools shall continue to be maintained jointly.

(iii) Inter-se-seniority between direct recruits and promotees shall be determined according to the rotation of vacancies between on direct recruits and promotees which shall be based on the quota of vacancies reserved for direct recruitment and promotion respectively in the recruitment rules.

(iv) Inter-se-seniority of employees of any grade shall be determined by the managing committee in accordance with the rules applicable to the employees of corresponding posts appointed in the Government schools:

Provided that in a case where a joint seniority roster of employees of each grade common to all schools used to be maintained by the society or trust running such schools prior to the commencement of these rules, such nter-se-seniority shall be determined by such society or trust."

5. As I noticed above, The Circular was issued on the 11th of January, 1990. The Rule 109 was amended w.e.f. 23rd of February, 1990. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms.Maninder Acharya, the Director of Education had issued the Circular by virtue of power confer under Rule 109, and, therefore, the Director is bound to issue similar circular with reference to the unaided schools.

6. On the 14th of December, 1998, the Director of Education had issued a circular to all the unaided recognised schools. The same reads as under:-

"Sub: Seniority of employees of the schools.

Sir/Madam,

This has reference to subject cited.

2. Rule 109 of Delhi School Education Rules, 109 stipulates maintenance of seniority rosters for each group and has also prescribed the procedure to prepare such rosters. It has come to the notice of the Department that certain schools are not maintaining the seniority rosters in respect of their employees as prescribed under Rule 109 of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973.

3. Therefore, all the Managing Committees of the unaided recognised schools are hereby directed to maintain the seniority roster of their employees in accordance with the provisions of the aforesaid Rule."

7. The managements of the unaided recognised schools have been directed to maintain seniority roster of the employees in accordance with the provisions of the Rule 109 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973. Proviso (ii) of Rule 109 refers to the cases where schools used to be maintaining joint seniority roster. The claim of the petitioners that the Director of Education should issue a circular similar to the one that was issued on the 11th of January, 1990 cannot at all be accepted. If the management running a group of schools is maintaining common seniority list or joint seniority list, that is a different matter. As a matter of right, the petitioners cannot pray for a writ of mandamus to the Director of Education to issue a circular similar to the one that of dated 11.1.1990.

8. The petitioner have not been able to establish any obligation on the part of the Director of Education as per the provision of the Delhi School Education Act and the Rules, 1973 to issue such a circular with reference to the unaided schools. Considerations to be taken into account by the Government with reference to the aided schools are not the same as that with regard to the unaided schools. I do not find any substance in the case of the petitioners. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

9. There shall be no order as to costs.