Delhi High Court
Suman Khattar & Ors. vs Navyug Education Society & Anr on 8 May, 2009
Author: S.Ravindra Bhat
17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of judgment: 08.05.2009
+ W.P.(C) 1775-77/2005, C.M. Nos. 1402/2005, 3098/2005 and 22/2006
SUMAN KHATTAR & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr. Ashok Agarwal and Mr. Mannu Mohan,
Advocates.
versus
NAVYUG EDUCATION SOCIETY & ANR ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. B.B. Gupta, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers Yes
may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be Yes
reported in the Digest?
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT, (OPEN COURT)
1. The writ petitioners claim to be aggrieved by the increase of hours of work from
1200. This change is in respect of primary teachers of Navyug Education Society and was
brought about by a circular.
2. The writ petitioners are teachers in the Navyug schools. They are aggrieved by a
circular which reads as follows:
"NAVYUG SCHOOL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY
HEAD OFFICE, N.P. PRIMARY SCHOOL, NO.01
HANUMAN ROAD : NEW DELHI
NSES/Misc./Working Hour-II/Part file/40/2005/148 Dated: 18.03.2005
OFFICE ORDER
With the prior approval of the Chairperson the timing of the Navyug
Schools on the examination days and the days given for preparation to the
students between the papers shall be from 8.00 A.M. to 12.00 Noon and on the
last working day of the month the school timing shall be from 8.00 A.M. to
1.00 P.M.
This shall come into force with immediate effect.
Sd/-
(S.R. SPOLIA)
DEPUTY DIRECTOR"
3. The writ petitioners contend that under Section 31 of the Delhi School
Education Rules, a limit on hours of work has been prescribed. The said rule is in the
following terms:
"31. School hours-(1) The director shall, by order, specify the time at
which all schools, other than recognized private schools, shall commence and
conclude the daily school hours and different timings may be specified for
different seasons of the year or for schools running in one shift or multiple
shifts.
Provided that the total school hours in a year for the middle and
higher secondary stage of education shall not, ordinarily, be less than 1000
hrs.
Provided further that in addition to 1000 school hours, a teacher may
be required to devote not more than 200 hours in a year for remedial or other
teaching.
2) The unaided recognized schools may specify their own timings
but, in any case, the total school hour in a year shall not be less than 1000
hours.
Provided that in addition to 1000 school hours, a teacher may be
required to devote not more than 200 hours in a year for remedial or other
teaching."
4. In addition to above, the petitioners rely upon statements made in the course of
previous writ proceedings, i.e. W.P. 1152/2005 whereby it was recorded as follows:
"So far as the question of restricting the working hours to 1200 hours per
year is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondents (NDMC) submits
that the same is being adhered to and the respondents will continue to adhere
to this.
About inclusion of two representatives of the teachers is the Managing
Committee, the respondents are directed to comply with the same. The
Managing Committee of the school should have two elected representatives of
the teachers as per the provisions of Rule 59 of the Delhi School Education
Rules 1973."
5. The respondents' contention is that increase of hours is in conformity with Rule 31
read with Rule 114 of the Act and Rules. Rule 114 provides inter alia that every teacher
should devote in an year, not less than 1200 hours to the teaching of students of which not
more than 200 hours can be devoted to coaching in school premises of weak students before
or after school hours.
6. The proviso to rule, which is relied specifically states as follows:
"XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX
Provided that if any teacher is required to devote more than 1200 hours to the
teaching of students, extra remuneration shall be paid to him at such rate as
may be determined by the managing committee, for every hour in excess of
1200 hours devoted by him to the teaching of students.
(2) In the case of an aided school, the extra remuneration referred to in
sub-rule (1) shall be subject to the previous approval of the Director and shall
qualify for aid at the rate of 95 per cent of such extra remuneration, and in the
case of an unaided school, such extra remuneration may be recovered from
the students at such proportionate rates as may be determined by the
managing committee."
XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX
7. It is submitted that the cap indicated in Rule 31 is not a maximum but a minimum
limit; the respondents further contend that extra 200 hours may be required for the remedial
and other teaching. According to the respondents, the objective of establishing Navyug
schools is different from other schools as they are primarily meant for gifted children
belonging to the economically weaker sections and the respondents are paid scales of pay
higher than what is provided for under the Act and Rules.
8. This Court has considered the submissions of parties. Although initially, Rule 31
indicates 1000 hours, it is phrased as a minimum standard; thus every teacher is to put in
1000 hours and also upto 200 hours in an year for remedial and other teaching. Rule 114
relieves the cap to a certain extent by saying that every teacher shall devote not less than
1200 hours to teaching of students and that if any teacher is required to devote more than
1200 hours, he would be paid extra remuneration.
9. It is significant that the rule has not been challenged in these proceedings. That being
the position, the impugned circular which fits in with the Scheme of the Rules cannot be held
to be arbitrary or unreasonable. It is meant to further the objectives of education even while
balancing the teaching staff's aspirations; they are entitled to claim extra remuneration in
such circumstances.
10. The writ petition is for the above reasons not maintainable; it is accordingly
dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
MAY 08, 2009
