Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. vs Satinder Kumar Rana And Ors.
2006 Latest Caselaw 928 Del

JUDGMENT

P.K. Bhasin, J.

1. The petitioners feeling aggrieved by the order dated 27.6.2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1776/98 directing the petitioners to consider the request of the respondents herein for their regularisation against the vacant posts of teachers after holding suitable selection test within three months filed this writ petition on 30.7.2004. Along with the writ petition they also moved an application for stay of the operation of the aforesaid order of the CAT. On 9.8.2004 when the writ petition was taken up for admission while issuing notice thereof to the respondents operation of the impugned order of the CAT was stayed by an ex parte order and now after notice to the respondents that application is being disposed of by this order as well as the application filed by respondent No. 1 for vacation of the said ex parte stay.

2. The relevant facts are that the respondents were engaged as part time teachers in the Adult Education Schools by the Directorate of Education and they were continued in employment for years with some intermittent are artificial breaks without regularising their services. The case of the respondents, who were the applicants before the CAT, was that even though there was need for regular teachers but still the petitioners (who were the respondents in the O.A.) had been kept only as part time teachers on a paltry payment of Rs. 500/- per month despite the fact that they were qualified to be appointed as regular teachers and that act of the Government amounted to exploitation. The respondents herein had prayed for their regularisation after holding of selection test/interview.

3. The present petitioners contested that claim of the respondents before the CAT on the ground that the part time teachers who were engaged without any test, etc., could apply for regular appointments as and when advertisements were issued for such appointment so that they could compete with others seeking regular appointment as teachers. It was also contended that the performance of the part time teachers was not up to the mark.

4. As noticed already, the O.A. filed by the respondents was allowed vide order dated 27.6.2003 and this Court had by an ex parte order dated 9.8.2004 stayed its operation.

5. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties we are of the view that the ex parte stay granted to the petitioners on 9.8.2004 deserves to be vacated. That order was obtained by the petitioners by concealing from this Court the fact that they had initially taken a decision to implement the impugned direction of the CAT vide its letter dated 31.5.2004 copy of which was annexed by the respondent No. 1 with the application for vacation of the stay. The petitioners had admitted issuance of this letter in their reply to contempt application before the CAT. So, it is clear that the petitioners after slipping (sic sleeping) over the matter for almost a year after the passing of the impugned order dated 27.6.2003 and took action to implement it only after they had received the contempt notice that they decided to honour the CAT's directions.

6. However after taking that decision the petitioners still did not implement the said decision and instead filed this writ petition and without disclosing all these facts obtained an ex parte stay order against the implementation of the impugned order of the CAT. This concealment of material facts by the petitioners at the time of hearing of the stay application on 9.8.2004 and which had been brought to the notice of this Court by respondents disentitles the petitioners to the grant of equitable relief of injunction.

7. Furthermore in the application for vacation of stay it had also been averred by the respondent No. 1 that the petitioners had sought time from the CAT for filing reply to the contempt application and in reply to that application the petitioners had not specifically dealt with this averment of respondent No. 1 this Court had on 23.3.2006 directed the petitioners to inform this Court if they had sought time for filing of reply to the contempt petition filed before the CAT by the respondents herein before filing of this writ petition. Pursuant to that direction a supplementary affidavit of Mrs. Gitanjali G. Kundra, Additional Director of Education (Admn.), Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi was filed in which, however, the information sought by this Court was not given and an explanation was given for the laches in the filing of this writ petition which was filed in by this Court on 30.7.2004. All this shows that the conduct of the petitioners has not been fair to this Court as well as the CAT. We are therefore of the view that for all these reasons the stay applications of the petitioners are liable to be rejected without going into the merits of the case of the petitioners. The stay application accordingly stands dismissed and as a consequece thereof the ex parte stay granted by this Court on 9.8.2004 stands vacated.