Mrs. Ranjana vs The Manager, City Public ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 487 Del

*               IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          W.P.(C) No.4050/1992

%                                       Dated: 11.02.2009

Mrs. Ranjana                                            .... Petitioner

                       Through Mr. S.N. Rai, Advocate

                                  Versus

The Manager, City Public Co-Education Middle
School & Ors.                                     .... Respondents
                   Through Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta with Mr.
                             Vaibhav Bharti & Mr. Vinit Jain,
                             Advocates

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

1.    Whether reporters of Local papers may be
      allowed to see the judgment?           NO
2.    To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3.    Whether the judgment should be reported in
      the Digest?                            NO

V. K. SHALI, J. (Oral)

*

1. This writ petition is challenging the order dated 17th August, 1990

passed by the respondent No.1 school and the order dated 12th

September, 1991 passed by Delhi School Tribunal in Appeal No.14/1991

titled Mrs. Ranjana Vs. City Public Co-Education Middle School, Anaj

Mandi, Shahdara, Delhi.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner had been

appointed as an Assistant Teacher by the respondent No.1 school on 29th

November, 1985 on the assumption that she was a holder of B.Ed. degree

from a recognized university. After serving the respondent school for

about three years or so, the Education Officer of the Directorate of

Education wrote a letter No.EO/Z-XIII/E/89/2803 dated 13th September,

1989 to the respondent No.1/ school wherefrom the petitioner had

obtained the certificate that is Maithili University, Darbhanga, is not a

recognized university. On 19th September, 1989, another letter was sent

by the Manager of the School advising the petitioner to obtain B.Ed.

degree from a recognized university as early as possible and in case she

has already taken the exam, she was requested to furnish this

information by way of an affidavit on a properly stamped paper. On the

basis of this communication sent by the Directorate of Education, a letter

dated 20th February, 1989 was issued to the petitioner that she must

produce original B.Ed. degree of a recognized university.

3. In response to this letter, the petitioner gave her reply on 11th

October, 1989 that the recognition of B.Ed. degree of Maithili Vidyapith is

already under active consideration of Parliamentary Board and therefore

till the final decision in the matter is taken, no precipitative action be

taken against her in the matter. Since the petitioner did not produce the

certificate, she wrote on 23rd March, 1990 to the Manager of the

respondent No.1 school stating therein that as the forms for almost all

the universities have been closed, therefore she may be given some time

to obtain the B.Ed. degree from a recognized university. After this letter

was written, the petitioner did not furnish any information to the

respondent No.1 school as to whether she has taken admission in any

recognized university for the purpose of pursuing her B.Ed. course or

not. Consequently, an order dated 17th August, 1990 was sent to her

terminating her services forthwith and she was further directed to collect

her cheque for the termination period. This order was sent to the

petitioner by post as she stopped attending her duties in the school from

17th August, 1990 itself. This order was challenged by the petitioner

before the Delhi School Tribunal which dismissed the appeal of the

petitioner on the ground that under Clause 8(iii) of Delhi School

Education Act as the petitioner has not been dismissed, removed or

reduced in rank, therefore the appeal of the petitioner before the Tribunal

is not maintainable. This judgment was given by the Tribunal on 12th

September, 1991.

4. The petitioner has challenged this order of termination dated 17th

August, 1990 as well as the order of the Tribunal dated 12th September,

1991 on the ground that the respondent No.1 school was fully satisfied

with the services rendered by the petitioner in the school and the degree

which was furnished by her was from a recognized university inasmuch

as this was recognized by the State of Rajasthan for which she had

placed a letter dated 2nd May, 1988 issued by the Assistant

Administrative Officer, Department of Education, Govt. of Rajasthan

stating that the degree of B.Ed. granted by Maithili Vidyapith is a

recognized degree. Therefore, it was urged that it ought to be assumed

that the degree issued to the petitioner was a recognized degree. In

addition to this, it was alleged that the respondents did not comply with

the Rule 120 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 which was

mandatory in nature.

5. The respondent No.1 school has contested the claim of the

petitioner by filing a detailed counter affidavit. It has been averred that

the degree of B.Ed. furnished by the petitioner is not from a recognized

university and for this they had received instructions from the

Directorate of Education which they could ill afford to ignore. It has been

further stated in the counter affidavit that not only the show cause notice

before termination was given but also the fact that she was given

sufficient opportunity to obtain a degree after pursuing the course from

any other recognized university. Since neither the degree was produced

nor the proof of pursing the B.Ed. degree from any recognized university

was furnished by way of an affidavit, respondent No.1 was constrained to

dispense with the services of the petitioner.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondents. I did not

have the advantage of hearing the arguments so far as the petitioner is

concerned. The learned proxy counsel, Mr. S.N. Rai has stated that the

counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.N. Rai could not come to the Court as he

is busy in Supreme Court and requests for an adjournment. The request

for adjournment was disallowed keeping in view the fact that the matter

pertains to the year 1992 and adjournments have been sought earlier

also.

7. I have perused the record. The only question which arises for

consideration is as to whether the petitioner was having a degree of B.Ed.

from a recognized university or not? The petitioner, as a matter of fact,

admitted in a letter dated 23rd March, 1990 addressed to the Manager of

the School that she does not have the degree from a recognized

university. In this regard, respondents have placed on record all the

communications between the respondent No.1 school and the petitioner

as well as the correspondence between respondent No.1 school and the

Directorate of Education. Apart from that, the respondents have also

placed on record the photocopies of the two degrees which are purported

to have been produced by the petitioner before the respondent No.1

school. In both these degrees, the name of the petitioner, Mrs. Ranjana,

wife of Sri Anirudha Prasad is shown to have qualified the B.Ed. degree

in the year 1985 in 2nd Division. But in case both these degrees are

compared, not only the handwriting of the two degrees with which the

name of the petitioner has been filled up appears to be different, but the

contents of the degrees itself are differently printed. In one of the

degrees, the 2nd Division of the petitioner is shown to be numerical II and

in the other, it is shown in the words. Therefore, this clearly gives rise to

a doubt that the petitioner, at the point of time when she took

employment with the respondent No.1 school, i.e. in the year 1985, she

was not qualified to be appointed as a Teacher because she did not have

the requisite degree of B.Ed. If that be the position, the factum of the

petitioner not having been given a show cause notice before termination

of her service is totally unwarranted. The record shows that the

petitioner was not having a degree of B.Ed. from a recognized institution

and therefore could not get her services confirmed by getting the

impugned orders set aside. She was, as a matter of fact, was not

qualified to be appointed as a Teacher at all.

8. Therefore, I find that there is no merit in the writ petition. The

submission of the learned proxy counsel for the petitioner that her case

was akin to that of the other persons, namely Balwinder Kaur and Rekha

Devi, whose services were retained by the respondent No.1 school is not

correct because both these Teachers were having the B.Ed. degrees from

the recognized university.

9. Since the very appointment of the petitioner was illegal as she was

not having the requisite degree, therefore the appointment itself being

void ab initio and it was not necessary for the respondent No.1 school to

have issued the show cause notice before termination of service of the

petitioner.

10. I, accordingly, uphold the validity of the order dated 17th August,

1990 terminating the service of the petitioner. So far as the order of the

Tribunal passed on 12th September, 1991 is concerned, although at that

point of time the jurisdiction of the Tribunal was only to consider the

appeals where in the incumbent has been dismissed, removed or reduced

in rank, but this has been now changed on account of judgment in

Kathuria Public School Vs Director of Education 2004 (113) DLT 703.

For the reasons mentioned above, there is no merit in the writ

petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

CM No.10788/2003

Since the writ petition has been dismissed, no orders are called for

on this application. The same is also dismissed accordingly.

FEBRUARY 11, 2009                                        V.K. SHALI, J.
skw