Shanker Sharma vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 2291 Del

$~1.

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+      WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 162/2011

                                            Decided on : 28th April, 2011


       SHANKER SHARMA                       ..... Petitioner
                   Through Ms. Jyoti Singh, Sr. Advocate
                   with Mr. Amandeep Joshi, Advocate

                       versus

       KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN
       & ORS                             ..... Respondents
                    Through Mr. S Rajappa and Mr. B.
                    Badrinath, Advocates


        CORAM:
        HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA


1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?



SANJIV KHANNA, J.:

1.     The petitioner Mr. Shanker Sharma claims that he is

entitled to re-appointment as LDC in Kendriya Vidyalaya

Sangathan in view of the policy decision dated 24th February,

2005. It is submitted that the Central Administrative Tribunal,
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 162/2011                              Page 1 of 4
 Principal Bench, New Delhi (Tribunal, for short) by the impugned

order dated 19th October, 2010 has failed to properly apply the

circular and has wrongly denied benefit of the same.

2.     The petitioner was transferred to from New Delhi to Uri

vide order dated 29.12.2000.         He did not join the post after

transfer and was removed from service vide order dated

30.4.2001 by invoking provisions contained in Article 81(d) of the

Education Code.           The said order of removal was upheld in

appeal and revision. OA No.1293/2001 filed by the petitioner

was dismissed vide Order dated 26.9.2002. Review application

was also dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 4.12.2002.

The petitioner preferred a writ petition but without success. The

removal order therefore attained finality.

3.     On 24th February, 2005 the respondents issued a circular

for re-engagement/reinstatement of 249 teachers whose cases

were recommended for sympathetic consideration by the

Amnesty Committee. These cases of reinstatement were to be

processed as per the rules, as per the CCS Pension Rules or

81(d)(7) of the Education Code as appropriate.             A similar

exercise was to be done for non-teaching staff and completed by

1st May, 2005.

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 162/2011                      Page 2 of 4
 4.     The respondents have explained and their said stand has

been accepted by the Tribunal that the exercise was undertaken

on case to case basis. In the case of the petitioner, it is pointed

out that the transfer was made on administrative grounds

because of the conduct of the petitioner, his integrity, work and

there were allegations that he was arrogant, careless,

quarrelsome etc.           On being transferred, he refused to join.

Accordingly the case of the petitioner was considered under the

Amnesty Scheme and rejected.               Learned Tribunal in this

connection in Para 7 has referred to findings of the Amnesty

Committee recorded in their Minutes dated 26.9.2008.

5.     The case of the petitioner was considered by the Amnesty

Committee but the petitioner was not found to be suitable and fit

for reinstatement/re-employment.         The Tribunal called for the

Minutes of the Meeting of the Amnesty Committee and after

perusing the same did not find that the stand of the respondents

was arbitrary, fanciful or perverse which required interference in

exercise of power of judicial review.        In view of the grounds

given by the Amnesty Committee and the reasons given by the

Tribunal why they are not inclined to interfere with the said

remarks, we do not find any justification to entertain the present

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 162/2011                       Page 3 of 4
 writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed in limine. No

costs.


                                      SANJIV KHANNA, J.

CHIEF JUSTICE

APRIL 28, 2011 vld