Delhi High Court
Sh.A.V.R.Rao vs Delhi Public School on 23 February, 2011
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C)No.4606/1996
% 23rd February, 2011
SH.A.V.R.RAO ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. A.V.R. Rao, appellant in person
VERSUS
DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Puneet Mittal, Adv. for the
respondent nos. 1 & 2.
Ms. Latika Choudhary, Adv. for
Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Adv. for the
respondent no.3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
1. Whether the 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?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This Writ Petition was originally filed by the petitioner seeking
the following reliefs:-
"a) issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction in the
nature of a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents
to grant the Petitioner his due seniority and promotion in
accordance with his date of appointment to the
Respondent No.1 School;
b) pass any such other and further orders which this
Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case."
2. By the Order dated 13th January, 1997, this writ petition was
WP(C)No.4606/1996 Page 1 of 4
disposed of with the observation that the writ petition will be considered
as a representation and decided by the respondent no.1, society. The
order dated 13.1.1997 reads as under:-
"13.1.1997
Present: Mr. N.S.Bajwa with Mr. Kamlajeet Singh for
petitioner.
C.W.No.4606/96
The grievance of the petitioner in this case is that
he had given his representation to the Chairman, Delhi
Public School Society on 6th June, 1996 which has yet not
been considered.
The petitioner superannuated on 31.3.1996. I
direct the Chairman, Delhi Public School Society to
consider the representation of the petitioner and decide
the same by a reasoned order. The learned counsel for
the petitioner may supply a copy of the writ petition with
annexures to the Chairman, Delhi Public School Society
who may consider the entire petition as petitioner‟s
representation and decide the same within four weeks
from the receipt of the same.
In case petitioner is still aggrieved, he would be at
liberty to revive this petitioner.
Nothing further survives in the writ petition and the
same is accordingly disposed of.
Dasti."
3. After the representation of the petitioner was rejected, the
petitioner revived this writ petition and in which the following order was
passed on 12.2.2009:
"%12.2.2009
Present: Mr.P.P.Khurana, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Vikaram
Saini, Adv. for the petitioner.
Mr. Saurabh Chadda for Ms. Avnish Ahlawat,
Adv. for the respondent no.3.
Mr. Mittal, Adv. for the respondent.
+W.P.(C) No.4606/1996
It has been contended by the learned senior
counsel for the petitioner that by order dated 13.1.1997
WP(C)No.4606/1996 Page 2 of 4
the High court had directed that a copy of the writ
petition be treated as representation addressed to the
Chairman of the Delhi Public School Society and he may
dispose of the same. Accordingly, order dated 10.3.1997
was passed by the Chairman of the petitioner society.
In the said order of the Chairman, it has been
stated that seniority list is being maintained by the school
and the same is in accordance with the Delhi School
Education Act and the Rules framed thereunder, and is
duly approved by the Directorate of Education.
Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has taken
me through various documents placed at pages no.45, 57
and 75 of the paper book, which prima facie shows that
the petitioner school is not maintaining the seniority list
in accordance with Rule 109 of the Delhi School Education
Rules and to that extent the order of the Chairman may
prima facie be not sustainable.
The learned senior counsel has also contended that
so far as the petitioner is concerned, he is already in the
evening of his life and he has been pursuing this 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 school with
regard to the seniority of teachers does not cause harm
to the other teachers.
Learned counsel for the respondent has very fairly
stated that he will have the entire seniority list of the
teachers both TGT and PGT separately recast and
rechecked from 1.1.1997 and file the same along with an
affidavit before this court. He states that this exercise
will be completed by them within four weeks.
Copy of the affidavit was filed along with the
annexures shall be supplied to the learned counsel for the
petitioner who may file rejoinder.
List in the category of „After Notice Miscellaneous
Matters‟ for disposal on 30th April, 2009."
4. A reading of the order dated 12.2.2009 shows that the
petitioner was not interested in any monetary benefit but wanted to
ensure removal of the deficiencies in the maintenance of the seniority list
WP(C)No.4606/1996 Page 3 of 4
and the respondent no. 1 was thereafter directed to recheck and recast
the seniority list from 1.1.1997. The respondent no. 1 has complied with
the orders of this court and a rechecked and recast seniority list has been
filed in this Court on 29.4.2009.
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.
FEBRUARY 23, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ak
