Yashpal Singh Mallik & Others vs The Director Of Education, Delhi & ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 54 Del

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+   LPA 4/2009
YASHPAL SINGH MALLIK & ORS      .... Appellant
                   Through Mr. K.N. Rai, Advocate.
                           Mr. S.N. Rai, Advocate.
              versus
THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION DELHI & ORS .. Respondent
                   Through Mr. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate.
    CORAM:
     HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

               ORDER

% 12.01.2009

This appeal is directed against the order dated 26th September, 2008, passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellants. The respondent No.2, in appeal, is a society, which is running four schools. The respondent No.2 had issued an advertisement to appoint TGT and PGT against the permanent vacancies in the schools.

A selection committee was constituted as per Rule 96 of the Delhi School Education Rules 1973. The selection committee met and prepared a select panel. The petitioners were selected and letters of appointment were issued to the petitioners. Thereafter by order dated 24th September, 2003, the Director of Education cancelled the selection on the ground of serious irregularities committed during the course of selection.

After examining the department file, learned Single Judge has observed that complaints were received by the Directorate of Education informing that after the members of the select panel had left, handing over the mark sheets, wholesome interpolations were made by increasing the marks awarded by certain members of the selection committee. It was informed to the Directorate of Education that wards and relatives of the some members of the selection committee were the candidates. Further as against the requirement of preparing a select panel, only one person i.e. the petitioners were declared selected. Marks awarded for educational qualifications of the candidates were not properly computed. It was also informed that many candidates sponsored by the employment exchange were never called for interview. Learned Single Judge has also after examining the department file has stated that these facts were confirmed in a detailed inquiry report dated 17th July, 2003. It appears that a notice was issued by Directorate of Education to the school administration/society and the school administration/society by its letter dated 11th September, 2003 had admitted that serious malpractices had been committed in the selection process. Considering the material on record, Director of Education finally cancelled the recruitment.

The order passed by learned Single Judge do not require any interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

CHIEF JUSTICE

SANJIV KHANNA, J JANUARY 12, 2009 NA