Ved Prakash Sharma vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr.
2003 Latest Caselaw 54 Del

JUDGMENT

S.K. Mahajan, J.

1. RULE.

2. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard and disposed of by this order.

3. The applicant in terms of the advertisement should not be more than 30 years of age in the case of Assistant Teachers and Graduate Teachers and 35 years in case of Post-Graduate Teachers. Since the petitioner had applied for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher, he as on 14th July 1990, in terms of the advertisement should have not been more than 30 years of age. Petitioner's date of birth was 25th May, 1958 and he was, therefore, 32 years and two months of age as on 14th July, 1990. He was thus not eligible to be appointed as a Trained Graduate Teacher in terms of the said advertisement. Since the petitioner was not appointed being overage, he filed a petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal for a direction being given to the respondents to appoint the petitioner as a Trained Graduate Teacher. Since the petitioner was working in a Government aided school, his contention, as raised before the Central Administrative Tribunal was that as in terms of Section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act, there was required to be a parity in the service conditions of the employees employed in private/government aided school with those employed in government school, he was entitled to relaxation of five years in upper age limit and he was thus eligible to be appointed a Trained Graduate Teacher pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondents. The petition was dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal by its order dated 8.8.1997. The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal was challenged by way of writ petition in this Court. The contention of the petitioner in that petition was that upper age limit was relaxable in terms of the Circular dated 3rd May, 1976 issued by the Director of Education and alternatively he was to be treated at par with the Government teachers for such relaxation. A Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 10th May, 2001 dismissed the petition holding that firstly the Circular dated 3rd May, 1976 was applicable to recruitment in private recognised schools only and secondly, the contention that the petitioner was entitled to relaxation in age already stood rejected by the Court in Civil Writ Petition No.3714/1997 titled Banwari Lal Versus Union of India and Others wherein it was held that the teachers working in private recognised schools/aided school could not be treated as Government servants to entitle them to relaxation in age under the relevant Rules. Confronted with that the petitioner prayed for withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to file fresh petition on the plea of discrimination as according to him, the respondents had allegedly granted age relaxation to similarly situate candidates working in private recognised schools/aided schools. After withdrawal of the writ petition, the petitioner filed the present petition.

4. The liberty granted by the Court while dismissing the C.W.P. No.4475/1997 was only on the ground that the petitioner could file a petition on the plea of discrimination. Only plea of discrimination raised by the petitioner in paragraph 6 of the writ petition, reads as under: -

"6. That earlier the above respondents had appointed one Shri Rajgopal Sharma s/o Shri Hardutt Sharma whose date of birth is 7.7.1951 and he was appointed on the basis of his working in a recognised school and was given relaxation in age and was appointed in a Government School on 20.1.1983 and is presently working at Government Higher Secondary School, Ashok nagar, Mandoli Road, Shahdara, Delhi-110032 w.e.f. 22.8.1989."

5. Thus the only discrimination alleged by the petitioner was about the person named in paragraph 6 of the writ petition. In its counter, the respondent has stated that Mr.Rajgopal Sharma, whose name was mentioned in paragraph 6 of the writ petition, was appointed to the post of TGT (Sanskrit) and he was not given any relaxation in age as he was 29 years and 10 months of age on the cut-off date fixed by the advertisement. It is thus clear that there was no discrimination in treating the persons who were similarly placed. Faced with this, the petitioner has now advanced another argument for which no liberty was granted by the Court. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Circular dated 3rd May, 1976 stood superceded by Circular dated 21.8.1978 according to which the service conditions of employees of aided schools were brought at par with those working in the government schools. The contention, therefore, is that since the working conditions of the employees working in the aided schools had been brought at par with those working in the government schools, the petitioner was entitled to relaxation as was being given to persons working in the government schools.

6. I am not impressed with the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. By Circular dated 21.8.1978, instructions were given regarding the officiating arrangement of the Principals and headmasters and the same is not applicable in the present case. Even otherwise according to this circular with the coming into force of the Delhi School Eduction Act and Rules framed there under with effect from 31.12.1973, the service conditions of employees of aided schools were brought at par with those working in Government Schools. This point was duly considered by this Court in CWP 3714/1997. By judgment given in Civil Writ Petition No.3714/1997 titled Banwari Lal Versus Union of India and Others on 10th May, 2001, the Division Bench of this Court has clearly observed that the provision about the parity of service condition only means that pay-scales, allowances, medical facilities, pension, provident fund and other prescribed benefits of the employees of recognised private schools/aided schools shall not be less than those working in corresponding State run schools. It was further observed by the Division Bench that the rationale behind was to afford protection and security to the employees of recognised private schools/aided schools to ensure that they were completely staffed to maintain the requisite standards of Education but that could not be overstretched to mean that such parity would result in altering the service status of these teachers and convert them into Government Servants. It was also observed that it was both far fetched and fallacious to assume so and by no logic or definition could such status be conferred on them even though they enjoyed parity with Government teachers in other respects. In my view, the observations of the Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.3714/1997 titled Banwari Lal Versus Union of India and Others are fully applicable to the facts of this case. Even, therefore, assuming that the petitioner can rely upon the circular dated 21.8.1978 despite liberty having not been granted by the Division bench in his earlier petition, the petitioner will still not be entitled to relaxation in age. I, therefore, do not find any merits in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.