A.V.R. Rao vs Delhi Public School & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 6037 Del

          *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                    Date of decision: 9th December, 2011

+                         LPA NO.347/2011

A.V.R. RAO                                                 ..... Appellant
                          Through:      Appellant in person.

                                     Versus

DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL & ORS.                   ..... Respondents
                 Through: Mr. Puneet Mittal, Adv. for DPS.
                           Ms. Avnish Ahlawat & Ms. Latika
                           Chaudhary, Advs. for GNCTD.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The order dated 23.02.2011 of the learned Single Judge disposing of W.P.(C) No.4606/1996 preferred by the appellant is in appeal.

2. The appellant, a teacher in the subject of Physics with the respondent No.1 School since the year 1966 filed the writ petition post his superannuation on 31.03.1996 with the grievance that in contravention of the Rule of Seniority, another teacher in the School viz. Mrs. Nirmala Kapoor was appointed as the Principal in the year 1985; that again in the year 1991 he was not selected for the post of Vice Principal; that his representation dated 01.11.1995 for removal of anomalies in the seniority list had remained unheeded, and seeking a writ directing the respondents to grant him his due

seniority and promotion in accordance with his date of appointment in the respondent No.1 School.

3. When the writ petition came up before the learned Single Judge on 13.01.1997, considering that the grievance of the appellant was that his representation had not been considered, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction for disposal of the representation within four weeks.

4. The said representation of the appellant was rejected. The appellant applied for revival of the writ petition and it appears that the writ petition was revived. When the matter came up before the learned Single Judge on 12.02.2009, it was noted that the representation of the appellant was rejected stating, that seniority list was being maintained by the School in accordance with the Delhi School Education Act and the Rules,1973 framed thereunder and had also been duly approved by the Directorate of Education. The senior counsel appearing for the appellant on that date stated that the appellant was pursuing the case not for any monetary benefit but only for vindication of his honour so that the deficiencies which are there in the maintenance of the seniority list by the respondent No.1 School with regard to seniority of teachers does not cause harm to the other teachers. The counsel for the respondent No.1 School on that date assured that he will again have the entire seniority list re-checked and place the same before the Court.

5. The matter came up before the learned Single Judge again on 23.02.2011 when it was noted that the recast and re-checked seniority list

had been filed in the Court. The learned Single Judge however disposed of the writ petition observing as under:-

"5. In view of the above, if anyone whose name if included in said list, is aggrieved by his seniority position for any reason whatsoever, including whether on account of gradation or categorization and so on, such person only will be entitled to approach the Court. This Court does not go into academic exercises when there is no lis and there is no aggrieved person before the Court. In view of the above, nothing further survives in this writ petition, which is accordingly disposed of."

6. Aggrieved therefrom the present appeal has been preferred.

7. We may at the outset state that the approach of the learned Single Judge in disposing of the writ petition cannot otherwise be faulted with. The Supreme Court in Arnit Das Vs. State of Bihar (2001) 7 SCC 657 has held that it is settled practice that the Court does not decide the matter which are only of academic interest on the facts of a particular case.

8. The appellant who appears in person has in his memorandum of appeal pleaded that the learned Single Judge has proceeded erroneously on the premise that the appellant has no further interest in the matter and that nothing survived for adjudication; he pleads that findings ought to have been rendered on the basic controversy; that there are serious errors in the seniority list drawn up by the respondent No.1 School; that an opportunity having been given to him on 12.02.2009 to file a rejoinder affidavit to the

counter affidavit of the respondent no.1 School evidenced continuing interest of the appellant in the writ petition; that he has in fact filed such a rejoinder pointing out serious infirmities in the counter affidavit of the respondent No.1 School; that his labour of over 14 years before the Court has been summarily rejected.

9. Though our sympathies are with the appellant who is a senior teacher of a prominent School, having devoted his lifetime to nurturing the young talent but the fact remains that the matter is now only of academic interest. It is apparent that most of the contemporaries of the appellant who were given seniority / promotion wherefrom the appellant is aggrieved are also now no more / longer in the respondent No.1 School. The appellant on 12.02.2009, when statement was given that he was not interested in any monetary outcome of the litigation, was represented by a senior counsel of this Court and we have neither any reason nor has the appellant contended that what was stated on that day is erroneously recorded. The learned Single Judge has in the circumstances rightly observed that the challenge if any required to be made to the seniority list should be left to be made by another teacher aggrieved from the list and no purpose would be served in adjudicating the said challenge in these proceedings when the matter was stale and when most of the persons who would be effected by such challenge were never impleaded as a party and are today also unlikely to be affected by the outcome of the writ petition.

10. We however clarify that the disposal of the writ petition would not mean rejection of the pleas raised by the appellant herein and it is only

owing to the facts and circumstances and reasons aforesaid that the petition and this appeal have been so disposed of. We have full regard for the appellant. With the observations aforesaid, the appeal is disposed of.

No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

DECEMBER 09, 2011 'gsr'