Delhi High Court
Manoj Kumar Tyagi vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. on 17 April, 2007
Author: R Sharma
Bench: R Sharma
JUDGMENT
Rekha Sharma, J.
1. Five years back, to be precise, on May 04,2002 the petitioner was appointed Yoga teacher after having been found fit for such appointment by a duly constituted Selection Committee. All these years he has performed his duties to the entire satisfaction of the school authorities and yet towards his salary he has not received even a penny. Infact his very appointment is in question. The objection is not from the school authorities. It emanates from the Directorate of Education. The ground advanced by the Directorate is that it never granted approval to his appointment. And secondly, that it was decided in a meeting held by the Secretary (Finance) on June 26,2002 that the vacant post of Yoga teachers in Government aided schools "will not be filled henceforth." This was communicated to the school authorities vide letter dated August 22, 2003.
2. Are these grounds, in view of the facts and circumstances and the operative rules worth any substance?
3. Let us have a look at the relevant rule. It is Sub-clause (4) of Rule 98 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973. This is how it reads:
(4) The Director shall be deemed to have approved an appointment made by the managing committee of an aided school if within fifteen days from the date on which the particulars of the appointment are communicated to him under Sub-rule (3), he does not intimate to the managing committee his disapproval of the appointment, and the person so appointed shall be entitled for his salary and allowance from the date of his appointment.
4. It is on the record that the school authorities through a communication dated April 19,2002 informed the Directorate about the constitution of the Committee and the date when the meeting was scheduled to be held. The Directorate was clearly asked to send its nominee. It is not disputed that this intimation was received. It is also not in dispute that despite having been informed the Directorate did not send its nominee. The Committee was thus well within its right to proceed ahead and having found the petitioner fit for appointment proceeded to do so.
5. Since as noticed above, the Directorate's nominee was not present in the process of selection, the school, in view of Rule 98(4) sought the approval of the Directorate by sending a communication dated May 6,2002. The Directorate had the option to either give its nod to the appointment or refuse approval. What did it do? It preferred to keep quiet and as it has become the bane of some Government departments, the Directorate also let the time of 15 days for granting or refusing approval pass-by. It was on June 25, 2002 that the Directorate responded to the communication dated May 6,2002 and thereby declined to grant the approval. By then the time to grant approval had already expired. The refusal therefore was of no consequence. It came too late in the day. The Rule 98(4) quoted above provides no latitude to those who refuse or ignore to respond within the time. The approval thus must be deemed to have been accorded in terms of the Rule.
6. As regards the second ground, the letter dated August 22,2003 on which reliance has been placed itself states that the decision taken in the meeting held on June 26, 2002 was that the vacant post of Yoga teachers in Government aided schools "will not be filled henceforth", meaning thereby, that it was only w.e.f June 26,2002 and thereafter that such posts were not to be filled. In view of what has been held by me with regard to the first ground the appointment of the petitioner had taken effect much prior to June 26,2002.
7. The petitioner, as has already been noticed above, has continued in the job for as long as five years and obviously to the satisfaction of the school authorities. The law is on his side. The equity leans in his favor. The writ petition in the circumstances is allowed. The letter dated 25th June, 2002 refusing to grant approval is quashed and a writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondent to release the salary of the petitioner within a period of two months. The petitioner shall also be entitled to cost of Rs. 10,000/-.
CM No. 712 of 2006
8. In view of the fact that writ petition has been allowed, no further orders are required in the application.
