Delhi High Court
Vipin Kumar vs Uoi & Ors. on 31 May, 2011
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: May 31, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 3628/1999
VIPIN KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.K.C.Mittal and
Mr.Dushyant Singh, Advocates
versus
UOI AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.V.S.R.Krishna and
Mr.Abhishek Yadav, Advocates
For UOI
Ms.Manisha and
Mr.Amit Bansal, Advocates
For Respondent No.4/CBSE
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. Petitioner, Vipin Kumar, was appointed on ad-hoc basis
as a substitute language teacher (Sanskrit) on 9.5.1994 by the
Oak Grove School, Jharipani, Dehradun.
2. The school is established and maintained by the
Northern Railway.
3. It was clearly indicated to him that his appointment on
ad hoc basis would confer no right on him to be permanently
absorbed as a permanent teacher.
4. Claiming that not much work was available, requiring a
full-time language teacher in Sanskrit to be employed in the
school and for the reason the teachers teaching Hindi had the
requisite skill to teach Sanskrit, which we note is taught under
the 3 language formula as 1 of the 3 languages which a student
must study till he passes out from school and that Sanskrit as an
option could be taken only up till Class VIII, petitioner was told
that there was no work for him and rather than send him home,
he was assigned duties to work in the hostel of the school where
he has been working since July 1996.
5. Placing reliance upon a scheme framed by the Railway
authorities to regularize ad-hoc and/or substitute teachers,
petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal
stating that he had a right to be regularized under the scheme
in question.
6. Vide impugned order dated 19.5.1999, OA
No.1339/1998 filed by petitioner has been dismissed.
7. A perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the
Tribunal has noted that on account of not much work for a
language teacher (Sanskrit), and there being urgent need to
have an additional teacher in English, the competent authority
took a decision to appoint a teacher in English language and do
away with the services of the petitioner.
8. The writ petition came to be dismissed firstly in default
on 25.8.2009 and notwithstanding a belated application seeking
restoration being filed, the writ petition was restored.
9. It was dismissed by a speaking order dated 20.4.2009.
10. The Division Bench noted that the claim of the petitioner
for regularization had been turned down by the Tribunal, inter
alia, taking note of two facts. Firstly, that appointment of
teacher can be done by selection through examination by direct
recruitment conducted by the Railway Recruitment Board and
that since there are statutory rules in place, without undergoing
a selection, the petitioner cannot seek regularization. Secondly,
that the post of language teacher (Sanskrit) had been converted
into that of an Assistant Master (English) and there was
adequate reason given by the respondent to do so, being that,
requirement of language teacher (Sanskrit) was not essential to
the requirement of the school since the subject was taught only
up to Class VIII and could be managed very well by a Hindi
teacher who had a Post Graduate degree in Sanskrit as well. On
the other hand the teacher teaching English language was not
sufficient for the requirement of the school.
11. Concluding its opinion, the Division Bench noted that in
view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the
Supreme Court reported as (2006) 4 SCC 1 Secretary, State of
Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi & Ors., the claim for regularization
could not succeed.
12. Petitioner filed RP No.259/2009 which was allowed vide
order dated 12.1.2010. It was noted that one issue pertaining to
conversion of the post of language teacher (Sanskrit) into that of
an Assistant Master (English) had not been adjudicated upon by
the Bench.
13. It is thus apparent that in view of the order dated
12.11.2010 the only issue which survives would be: Whether the
post of language teacher (Sanskrit) could be converted into one
of Assistant Master (English).
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the letter
dated 4.9.1997 written by the General Manager Northern
Railway to the Union of which the petitioner is a member of,
clearly records that the post of language teacher (Sanskrit) has
been converted into that of an Assistant Master (English) and for
which learned counsel urges that the decision had to be taken
by the competent authority and not the Principal of the school.
Secondly, counsel urges that as per CBSE norms the school
must have a teacher to teach Sanskrit.
15. As regards the requirement of CBSE suffice would it be
to note that the school 'Oak Grove School' is affiliated with CBSE
and must meet the Affiliation Bye-Laws of CBSE. However,
Ms.Manisha, learned counsel for CBSE states that the
requirement of CBSE is that where a school offers Sanskrit as a
subject to be taken by a student till Class VIII, there should be
some teacher to teach the subject and not that a permanent
teacher should be employed by the school.
16. Thus, the second contention urged by learned counsel
for the petitioner stands taken care of.
17. As regards the first contention, it may be noted that the
General Manager Northern Railway has used an inappropriate
expression in the letter dated 4.9.1997. It is not a case of
conversion of one post into another. It is a case where services
of the petitioner were disengaged inasmuch as there was
insufficient work left for a Sanskrit teacher and the school had a
teacher teaching Hindi who was a post-graduate in Sanskrit and
could teach Sanskrit to such students who had opted for the
language as a subsidiary subject. Since the school required an
additional language teacher to teach English, it was a case of
creating an additional post in the discipline of the language
English.
18. That apart, we reiterate the reasoning of the Division
Bench in its decision dated 20.4.2009. The petitioner was
appointed on ad-hoc basis without undergoing the selection
process. He was clearly told in the year 1994 that his
appointment was a stop-gap measure. No rights vested in him
till in the year 1996 his services were disengaged. The ratio of
law in Uma Devi's case (supra) is squarely attracted. There
being statutory Recruitment Rules which require appointment by
a process of selection, petitioner cannot take any back door
entry.
19. Noting that the petitioner has been employed in the
hostel of the school and has not been thrown on the road and
occasionally his services are taken to teach Sanskrit as and
when the Hindi teacher teaching Sanskrit is on leave or for some
reason is not able to take classes, we dismiss the writ petition
but refrain from imposing costs.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
SURESH KAIT, J.
MAY 31, 2011
rk
