Delhi High Court
Smt. Neerja Jain vs Bengali Senior Secondary School & ... on 11 May, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 11th May, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 6677/2010
SMT. NEERJA JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.K. Saini & Mr. Sitab Ali
Chaudhary, Advocates
Versus
BENGALI SENIOR SECONDARY
SCHOOL & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Kiran Dharam, Adv. for R-1.
Ms. Purnima Maheshwari, Adv. for
R-2.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may Yes.
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes.
in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The respondent No.1 is a recognized School aided by the respondent
No.2 Directorate of Education (DOE), Government of National Capital
Territory of Delhi. The respondent No.2 DOE vide its letter dated 21 st
June, 2007 to the Manager of the respondent No.1 School conveyed the
approval regarding creation / abolition of posts in the respondent No.1
School for the year 2006-07. One of the posts so approved was of a Post
Graduate Teacher (PGT) in the subject of Computer Science.
2. The respondent No.1 School vide advertisement published in the
newspapers in April, 2009, invited applications for appointment to the post
of PGT (Computer Science). The procedure for recruitment in private
schools whether aided or not, as the respondent No.1 School is, is provided
in Chapter-VIII of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973. The
respondent No.1 School vide letter dated 24th July, 2009 to the respondent
No.2 DOE requested for nomination of a Subject Expert for inclusion in
the Selection Committee (DPC) for selecting teachers in various
disciplines including for PGT (Computer Science). The respondent No.2
DOE vide letter dated 10th August, 2009 to the respondent No.1 School
conveyed the nomination of Subject Experts for various subjects. The
name of Mrs. Mamta Sarin, Assistant Professor, Computer Science, Kirori
Mal College, Delhi University was mentioned as Subject Expert for
recruitment to the post of PGT (Computer Science). The DPC having been
so constituted, the petitioner and the others who had applied for the post of
PGT (Computer Science) were called to appear in the interview and the
DPC in its Minutes of meeting held on 15th September, 2009 noted that the
post of PGT (Lect.) Computer Science in the unreserved category is duly
sanctioned and clearance to fill up the same had already been obtained
from the respondent No.2 DOE "vide letter dated 1st April, 2009". The
DPC after interviewing eight candidates for the post of PGT (Computer
Science), recommended a panel of two candidates for appointment to the
said post with the name of the petitioner being first in the said panel.
3. The respondent No.1 School accordingly issued appointment letter
dated 18th September, 2009 to the petitioner. One of the terms of the said
appointment letter was that the appointment was subject to the approval of
the respondent No.2 DOE.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that under Rule 98(2) of the Delhi
School Education Rules though every appointment made by the Managing
Committee of an aided school shall, initially, be provisional and shall
require the approval of respondent No.2 DOE but the proviso thereto
provides that such approval of respondent No.2 DOE will be required only
where the respondent No.2 DOE‟s nominee was not present in the
Selection Committee / DPC or in case there is difference of opinion
amongst the members of the Selection Committee. It is contended that
since the DPC pursuant to whose recommendation the petitioner was
appointed had Mrs. Mamta Sarin as the nominee of respondent No.2 DOE,
no such approval of the respondent No.2 DOE was required for the
appointment of the petitioner.
5. Rule 96(3)(b) of the Rules (supra) provides that for appointment of a
teacher (other than the head of the School), the Selection Committee shall
consist of:
(i) the Chairman of the managing committee or a member of the
managing committee nominated by the Chairman;
(ii) the head of the school;
(iii) in the case of a primary school, a female educationist having
experience of school education;
(iv) in the case of an aided school, one educationist to be
nominated by the Director, and one representative of the
Director;
(v) in the case of appointment of a teacher for any class in the
middle stage or any class in the higher secondary stage, an
expert on the subject in relation to which the teacher is
proposed to be appointed, to be nominated, in the case of an
unaided school by the managing committee, or in the case of
an aided school, by the Director.
6. It would therefore be seen that in the case of appointment to the post
of a teacher in the middle stage or higher secondary stage in an aided
school, the respondent No.2 DOE is required to nominate an educationist
and another representative as well as a Subject Expert to the Selection
Committee. Mrs. Mamta Sarin was appointed as the Subject Expert.
However, a perusal of the Minutes dated 15 th September, 2009 (supra) of
the DPC shows that the same comprised also of Smt. Neelima Sharma as
DOE‟s nominee, Sh. Raj Kapoor, Education Officer, Zone VII as well as
Sh. B.K. Sharma, Principal, RPVV Ludlow Castle No.1. The DPC which
recommended the appointment of the petitioner is thus found to be
constituted in accordance with the Rule (supra).
7. The grievance of the petitioner is that notwithstanding her
appointment to the respondent No.1 School as aforesaid on 18 th September,
2009 and her having joined duty with effect from the same day i.e. 18th
September, 2009 and having worked in the respondent No.1 School since
then, the respondent No.2 DOE is not releasing the 95% share of her wages
/ emoluments, as it is required to do in the case of an aided School (the
balance 5% being borne by the Managing Committee). Upon
representations of the respondent No.1 School in this regard, the
respondent No.2 DOE finally vide letter dated 14 th September, 2010
informed to the respondent No.1 School that the appointment of the
petitioner as aforesaid in the respondent No.1 School could not be
approved as no recruitment rules for the post of PGT (Computer Science)
had been framed by the Administration of Delhi.
8. Aggrieved as aforesaid and impugning the letter dated 14 th
September, 2010, the present petition has been filed seeking a direction
inter alia for release of the salary of the petitioner from the date of her
appointment i.e. 18th September, 2009.
9. Notice of the petition was issued. Counter affidavits have been filed
by the respondent No.1 School and the respondent No.2 DOE. The
respondent No.1 School has supported the petitioner. The counsels have
been heard.
10. The stand of the respondent No.2 DOE before this Court also is that
since the recruitment rules for the post of PGT (Computer Science) do not
exist, the appointment of the petitioner is ab initio incorrect and grant-in-
aid for the post of PGT (Computer Science) cannot be released. Reference
is made to Rules 66(1) of the Delhi School Education Rules providing that
in order to be eligible to receive grant-in-aid, a School shall employ
adequate number of qualified teaching and other staff as approved by the
respondent No.2 DOE under the norms of post fixation or as has been
specified by him from time to time.
11. I am aghast to learn that inspite of the emphasis in the last at least 10
years, if not earlier, on the need to educate school children in Computer
Science, the respondent No.2 DOE has not bothered to even frame the
rules for recruitment of teachers to teach Computer Science. The stand
of the respondent No.2 DOE also leads one to believe that Computer
Science is not being taught in schools of DOE or in aided schools. The
counsel for the respondent No.2 DOE of course states that she has no
instructions whether in other DOE schools or aided schools Computer
Science was/is being taught or not and how the teachers for the subject of
Computer Science, if any, had been recruited. If that be the state of affairs,
it amounts to depriving the students of DOE schools and aided schools
from pursuing a career in Computer Science in as much as without the
students having studied the subject of Computer Science in School, they
would not be considered for admission into graduate courses in the said
subject.
12. No answer whatsoever has been forthcoming as to why, if there were
no recruitment rules, the post of PGT (Computer Science) was sanctioned
and nominations to the Selection Committee for the said post made, if in
the absence of Recruitment Rules no admission was intended to be made.
The respondent No.2 DOE by its such actions has led the petitioner to alter
her position and cannot now be heard to contend otherwise. The Division
Bench of this Court in Vinod Kumar v. UOI 94(2001) DLT 600 invoked
the principle of promissory estoppel in the matter of recruitment. On
enquiry, it was also informed that the petitioner is the only teacher of the
subject of Computer Science in the respondent No.1 School.
13. The counsel for the respondent No.2 DOE has also contended that
under the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, the
qualifications of a teacher cannot be judged in the absence of recruitment
rules. On enquiry, as to what is the qualification prescribed for
appointment as a teacher of other Science subjects, it is informed that the
qualification is of post graduation and B.Ed. and experience in certain
cases. The counsel for the petitioner has contended that the eligibility
requirement for PGTs in other science subjects is of the Master‟s Degree
in the subject and it is contended that the petitioner herein has also done
her Master‟s in Computer Science from Maharshi Dayanand University,
Rohtak. The petitioner in the present case claims to have the qualification
of B.Ed. also. Moreover, a duly constituted Selection Committee having
selected the petitioner, I have no doubts whatsoever that no injustice would
be caused if, even in the absence of the Recruitment Rules, directions as
sought by the petitioner are issued in as much as the students who must
have already opted for the subject of Computer Science in the respondent
No.1 School and who are being taught by the petitioner cannot be left in a
lurch and which would be the axiomatic result if the petitioner is denied
the relief.
14. The petition is therefore allowed on the following terms:
(i) the letter dated 14th September, 2010 of the respondent No.2
Directorate of Education refusing approval to the recruitment
of the petitioner is quashed / set aside;
(ii) it is declared that the appointment of the petitioner being in
pursuance of the recommendation of a Selection Committee,
having the nominee of the respondent No.2 DOE, no approval
to such appointment was / is required;
(iii) the respondent No.2 DOE is directed to release the grant-in-
aid qua the salary / emoluments of the petitioner with effect
from the date of her appointment i.e. 18 th September, 2009
and till the month of April, 2011 within six weeks of today
failing which the same would also incur interest at the rate of
10% per annum;
(iv) the respondent No.2 DOE is also directed to with effect from
the month of May, 2011 release grant-in-aid qua the salary /
emoluments of the petitioner along with the release of the
grant qua other teachers;
(v) the respondent No.2 DOE is directed to within 10 weeks of
today frame the rules for the recruitment in private schools for
teachers of the subject of Computer Science, to ensure that the
schools do not remain handicapped in teaching the said
subject for the reason of absence of recruitment rules.
No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
MAY 11, 2011
„gsr‟
(corrected and released on 16th May, 2011).
