Delhi High Court
Khrist Raja Secondary School vs Renu Sharma & Another on 15 July, 2011
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 15.07.2011
+ CONT. CAS (C) No. 950/2009
KHRIST RAJA SECONDARY SCHOOL
........... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anup Kumar, Advocate.
Versus
RENU SHARMA & ANOTHER
..........Respondent
Through: Mr. Sushil Dutt Salwan,
Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Yes
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1 By way of this petition it is contended that the respondent
has committed a contempt of the order of the Court dated
24.10.2008 passed in W.P.(C) No.530/2001 St. Anthony's Girls
Senior Secondary School & Others Vs. The Government of NCT of
Delhi. The relevant extract of the order reads as follows:-
"..... We censure the interference in the Management of the School
perpetrated by Mr. Kaushik. We clarify that the management of the School has
the untrammeled and unbridled powers to choose any person who meets with
the qualifications set-down for a Vice-Principal and who is chosen by a
Selection Committee constituted in consonance with Rule 96.
17 In this analysis, we strike down column 8 of the impugned RRs. The
effect is that, as recorded in Column 3 thereof, these posts shall be filled up by
selection from amongst persons who have offered their candidatures.
18. Since the conduct and position adopted by the Director of Education is
meritless, and is in variance with the repeated enunciation of the law reiterated
by the Supreme Court in several cases, the Director of Education shall pay
costs of these proceedings quantified at `50,000/-. Out of this sum, `15,000/- to
be paid to each of the petitioners and the balance Rupees 20,000/- shall be
deposited with the Prime Minister Relief Fund within thirty days from today."
2 Learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that in
terms of the aforenoted directions, the candidature of all the
concerned candidates had been considered in accordance with the
Rules of the Department and sister Meena Naidu had been found
unfit for appointment as Vice Principal; it is submitted that this
had been communicated to the petitioner school vide
communication dated 05.11.2009 wherein the department had
rejected the appointment in respect of Sister Meena Naidu for the
post of Vice Principal.
3 Admittedly this order has not been challenged in any court.
In the written submission filed by the department it has been
explained that the essential requirement for the post of Vice-
Principal is either that the person should have a five years
experience as PGT or 10 years experience as TGT; two certificates
filed by the petitioner dated 28.02.2005 dated 02.12.2008 had
been considered but the petitioner did not have the minimum
prescribed five years experience as a PGT.
4 The order of 24.10.2008 as noted supra had given a
direction to the department that the posts including the post of
Vice Principal shall be filled by a selection amongst those persons
who had filed up their candidature. There was no specific
directions that Sister Meena Naidu irrespective of the fact,
whether she fulfilled the requisite criteria as required to be for
appointment to the post of Vice Principal has to be appointed; in
fact her candidature had been rejected and communicated vide
communication dated 05.11.2009; this was prior to the filing of
this contempt petition.
5 There is no other dispute raised or urged. The first order of
this Court had noted that a prima-facie contempt is made out as
the salary of the teachers had been withheld; this is not pressed
today. Only contention is the appointment of Sister Meena Naidu
to the post of Vice Principal. The explanation furnished in the
written submissions filed by the department shows that the Sister
Meena Naidu did not fulfill the necessary eligibility criteria for the
appointment to the post of Vice Principal. No contempt has been
made out.
6 Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
JULY 15, 2011
a
