Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & ... vs Rani Devi & Another
2010 Latest Caselaw 1888 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          WP(C) No.2385/2010
%
                       Date of Decision: 12.04.2010

Municipal Corporation of Delhi & others               .... Petitioners
                   Through Mr.Gaurang Kanth & Mr.B.Rajesh, Advocates.

                                 Versus

Rani Devi & another                                  .... Respondents
                 Through      Ms.Jyoti Singh & Mr.Amandeep Joshi,
                              Advocates.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG

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


ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

The petitioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, has challenged the

order dated 8th July, 2009 passed by the Central Administrative

Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in T.A. No.626 of 2009, titled as

'Mrs. Rani Devi v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi', setting aside the

order of the petitioner reverting her as TGT to the Assistant Teacher

(Nursery) and directing the petitioner to continue respondent No.1 as

TGT in Government of NCT and to grant her release of increments and

all other consequential benefits and arrears.

The relevant facts to comprehend the controversies between the

parties are that respondent No.1 was appointed as Assistant Teacher

(Nursery) in Primary School. Respondent No.1 was confirmed as

Assistant Teacher on 19.02.1989, and was also allowed to cross

efficiency bar.

Respondent No.1 had applied on 24.01.1997 with a No Objection

Certificate from Municipal Corporation of Delhi for selection to the post

of TGT (Hindi). A DPC was also held for promotion of respondent No.1 to

the post of Language Teacher i.e. TGT (Hindi), and an approval was also

given by the Deputy Director of Education. On promotion as Language

Teacher i.e. TGT (Hindi), respondent No.1 was relieved permanently

from Municipal Corporation of Delhi, and she joined Government of

NCT on 17th October, 1998.

Four years after the appointment of respondent No.1 as Language

Teacher i.e. TGT (Hindi), she was sent a letter dated 26.02.2002 alleging

that her appointment on promotion as Language Teacher was on the

basis of incorrect facts, as she was Assistant Teacher (Nursery), and

therefore, she was not eligible for promotion. A show cause notice dated

04th April, 2002 was also issued to respondent No.1, which was replied

by her on 06th April, 2002. However, the order of reversion dated 03rd

June, 2002 from Language Teacher i.e. TGT (Hindi) to Assistant Teacher

(Nursery) was issued to respondent No.1, which was challenged by

respondent No.1 before the High Court in writ petition where the order

dated 03rd June, 2002 was passed and order of reversion was stayed.

Thereafter, the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 in the High Court

was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal

Bench, New Delhi.

Before the Tribunal, it was contended by the counsel for

respondent No.1 that respondent No.1 was an Assistant Teacher in a

primary school though she was an assistant teacher (Nursery),

pursuant to a No Objection Certificate issued by the Municipal

Corporation of Delhi and approval by the Deputy Director of Education,

she was considered by DPC and found fit for promotion and thereafter

promoted as TGT. She worked as TGT four years. In the circumstances,

four years after her promotion as Language Teacher i.e. TGT (Hindi),

she could not be reverted to the post of Assistant Teacher (Nursery). It

was also contended that no distinction could be carved out between the

Assistant Teacher (Nursery) and Assistant Teacher (Primary), as there is

no separate Nursery School of Municipal Corporation of Delhi nor any

such distinction is apparent from the relevant rules, and therefore, the

Assistant Teacher even in Nursery School are in the feeder category for

promotion as TGT in languages.

After considering the respective contentions of the parties, the

Tribunal has held that perusal of the Recruitment Rules categorically

reflect that feeder post for TGT language is Assistant Teachers in

schools of Municipal Corporation of Delhi. No distinction as has been

alleged by the petitioner between the Assistant Teacher (Primary) and

Assistant Teacher (Nursery) could be made from the rules. The

distinction alleged by the petitioner is also not tenable because the

Municipal Corporation of Delhi does not have any independent Nursery

Schools. It was also noticed that the Assistant Teacher in Municipal

Corporation of Delhi Primary School has been teaching in Nursery

Classes.

In the circumstances, it was held that all Teachers teaching in

Primary School, even those teaching the nursery classes are in the

feeder category for the post of TGT. The Tribunal also noted that

respondent No.1 possessed all the qualifications, which made her

eligible for promotion, which was considered by a well constituted DPC

which had approved the selection of respondent No.1. The Tribunal,

therefore, set aside the order of the reversion on the ground that

respondent No.1 was duly selected and appointed and she was eligible

and she could not be reverted without giving a reasonable opportunity

to her.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has again reiterated the same

pleas and contentions which were raised before the Tribunal. The

learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show any distinction

between the Assistant Teacher (Primary) and Assistant Teacher

(Nursery) on the basis of Manual of Rules and Regulation Part-I of

Municipal Corporation of Delhi where only the disciplines for Assistant

teachers are given. The other nomenclature of Assistant Teacher

(nursery) and Assistant teachers (Primary) is not born out of the said

manual of rules. No distinction between the Assistant Teacher (Primary)

and Assistant Teacher (Nursery) can be supported on the basis of

Recruitment Rules. If the feeder category for the post of Language

Teacher i.e. TGT (Hindi) is Assistant Teacher, the petitioner cannot

contend that Assistant Teachers (Nursery) are not eligible for promotion

to the post of Language Teacher i.e. TGT (Hindi).

In any case, the case of the petitioner was considered by a duly

constituted DPC that too after a No Objection Certificate was issued to

respondent No.1 in 1997. Not only a No Objection Certificate was

issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi was issued but even

approval by Deputy Director of Education was also given on 18th

September, 1998. If respondent No.1 was selected for the post of

Language Teacher i.e. TGT (Hindi) pursuant to a No Objection

Certificate by Municipal Corporation of Delhi, and approval by Deputy

Director of Education in 1998, four years after her promotion, she could

not be reverted to the post of Assistant Teacher without any reasonable

opportunity to her. In any case the relevant rules do not justify the plea

of the petitioner and consequently the respondent no.1 could not be

reverted in the facts and circumstances.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, on a query by this Court that

if the Assistant Teachers (Nursery) are not in feeder category for the

post of TGT, then what are their promotion avenue, has contended that

promotion avenue for the post of Assistant Teacher (Nursery) is to the

post of principal. This plea is not supported by any rules of the

petitioner. No distinction between the Assistant Teacher (Nursery) and

Assistant Teacher (Primary) is reflected from the Manual of Rules of the

Municipal Corporation of Delhi which only stipulates the disciplines.

The learned counsel for the Corporation is unable to point any

recruitment rule which has been violated in appointment of the

respondent to the post of TGT (Hindi).

In the circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner has

not been able to make out any ground for interference with the order of

the Tribunal dated 8th July, 2009. In any case, the order does not suffer

from any such illegality or irregularity which shall require any

interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article

226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition, in the facts and

circumstances of the case is, therefore, without any merit, and it is,

therefore, dismissed.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

APRIL 12, 2010                               MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'VK'