Veer Mahendra Prakash Singh vs The Management Of Sharda Devi ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 3990 Del

             *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                          Date of decision: 17th August, 2011
         +                        W.P.(C) 410/2009

         VEER MAHENDRA PRAKASH SINGH               ..... Petitioner
                       Through: Mr. G.S. Sharma, Advocate
                 Versus

         THE MANAGEMENT OF SHARDA DEVI SANSKRIT
         VIDHAYAPEETH & ANR.                   .....Respondents
                    Through: Mr. S.K. Shukla, Advocate for R-1.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may       Not necessary
         be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?             Not necessary

3.       Whether the judgment should be reported            Not necessary
         in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as an Assistant

Teacher with the respondent no.1 Sharda Devi Sanskrit Vidhyapeeth,

Darya Ganj on 12th April, 1999, for teaching Hindi and Sanskrit to Classes

6th to 10th; that his services were regularized on 7th August, 2000; that in

the seniority list of the Assistant Teachers drawn up on 26 th November,

2001, his name figured at serial no. 4; that his salary was not paid for the

period 12th April, 1999 to 30th June, 2000 inspite of demand therefor in the

letters dated 10th March, 2005, 15th January, 2007 and 26th July, 2007; that

he was not allowed inspection of the annual audited account of the school

for the years 1998 to 2001 inspite of demand; that he was declared surplus

in the respondent no.1 school vide order dated 26th February, 2008 of

respondent no.2 Directorate of Education and which order also directed

him to report at Rani Dutta Arya Vidyalaya, Darya Ganj; that he so

reported for duty to Rani Dutta Arya Vidyalaya, Darya Ganj; that on 29 th

February, 2008 respondent no.1 school constituted a DPC for promotion to

the two posts of TGT in the respondent no.1 school, and of which one was

reserved for OBC. The petitioner has sought the relief of directing the

respondent no.1 school to release the salary of the petitioner w.e.f. 12 th

April 1999 to 30th June, 2000 with interest and of directing the respondents

to promote the petitioner as TGT, Grade-II with consequential benefits.

2. Notice of the petition was issued and pleadings have been

completed. Counsel for the petitioner and for respondent no.1 school have

been heard. None has appeared for respondent no.2 Directorate of

Education.

3. The status of the respondent no.1 school has been enquired. The

counsel for the petitioner states that according to respondent no.1 school, it

was a recognized unaided school till 30th June 2000 and is an aided school

thereafter. He however contends that it was an aided school even prior to

30th June, 2000 and has, in this regard, handed over photocopy of an

identity card stated to have been issued by the school on 12 th April, 1999.

However, the said controversy is not found to be relevant for the present

purposes.

4. It has next been enquired from the counsel for the petitioner as to

whether the post of TGT to which the petitioner seeks appointment was a

promotional post or to be filled by direct recruitment. He states that the

same is a promotional post. It has yet next been enquired as to how the

petitioner can seek promotion in the respondent no.1 school when he had,

prior thereto, been transferred to Rani Dutta Arya Vidyalaya, Darya Ganj.

It is not the case of the petitioner that for promotion, the seniority list is

common for all the aided schools. The counsel for the petitioner replies

that though the post of TGT in respondent No.1 School existed from prior

to his transfer but to deprive him of the said post, it was advertised only

after his transfer. Even if that be so, the transfer of the petitioner from

respondent no.1 school to Rani Dutta Arya Vidyalaya, Darya Ganj is not

under challenge. The petitioner according to his own case is thus not

eligible for promotion claimed.

5. In this regard, it may also be noted that the petitioner as Annexure P-

18 to the petition has filed an advertisement by which respondent no.1

School had invited applications for appointment to the said post and which

suggests that the appointment was sought to be made by direct recruitment

and not by promotion. There is no explanation as to why the petitioner

could not seek appointment to the said post. The stand of respondent no.2

Directorate of Education in its counter affidavit may also be noticed. It is

stated that the respondent no.1 school had, till the filing of the counter

affidavit on 27th May, 2009, not even sought permission or the clearance

for filling up of the said posts of TGT. Respondent no.1 School in its

counter affidavit in this regard has stated that the petitioner is not eligible

as per his qualifications for the appointment to the post of TGT and in any

case, if considers himself eligible, was free to apply in response to the

advertisement aforesaid published by respondent no.1 school.

6. There is thus no merit in the claim of the petitioner for appointment

to the post of TGT.

7. As far as the claim of the petitioner for arrears of salary is

concerned, not only has it not been explained as to why demand for salary

for the period 12th April, 1999 to 30th June, 2000 was made for the first

time on 10th March, 2005, but both the respondents in their counter

affidavits have stated that on complaint by the petitioner to the Directorate

of Education in this regard, an inquiry was conducted which did not find

any merit in the complaint of the petitioner and found the salary for the

said period to have been paid to the petitioner. Counsel for respondent no.1

school has, in this regard, invited attention to the report at page 159 of the

paper book of the Enquiry Committee constituted in this regard.

8. The Directorate of Education having concluded that the salary has

been paid to the petitioner, no mandamus can be issued to the Directorate

of Education. If the petitioner remained aggrieved from the said report his

only remedy was to make claim for salary in a civil court and the same

cannot be the subject matter of this writ petition.

9. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.

10. Counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to file civil suit for arrears of

salary. The petitioner shall be entitled to make such claim in accordance

with law.

No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) AUGUST 17, 2011 'gsr'