Delhi High Court
Jeewa Anand vs Director Of Education And Anr. on 7 May, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 07th May, 2012
+ W.P.(C) 449/2010
JEEWA ANAND ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashish Mohan, Adv.
versus
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Vinod Wadhwa, Adv. for R-1.
Mr. Devender Kumar, Vice Principal for
R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Vide the instant petition petitioner has sought a writ of
mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to immediately issue a letter
of appointment to the petitioner for the post of Waterman, more
particularly in terms of the directions of the respondent no. 1 to the
respondent no. 2.
2. Also sought direction that since the respondent no. 2 had
illegally, unlawfully and unauthorizedly not appointed the petitioner
to the post of the Waterman despite the directives of the respondent
no. 1.
3. Petitioner has also sought his entitlement to all his emoluments
from the said date of 20.08.2005 including his seniority.
4. The brief facts of the instant petition are that in the year 2003,
respondent no.2 invited application for various posts including
Waterman in general category as the respondent no. 2 is aided,
recognized and public school working under the supervision and
guidelines of the respondent no. 1. Being eligible, the petitioner
also applied for the said post.
5. On 13.09.2003, respondent no. 2 issued an Interview Letter for
30.09.2003 and the petitioner was appeared for the said interview and
his name was put at Serial no. 2 in the list, however one Mr. Suresh
Kumar got appointed.
6. On 10.12.2003, upon scrutiny of the documents, said Suresh
Kumar found overage. Whereas the respondent no. 1 even turned
down the request of respondent no. 2 for granting age relaxation and
for fresh appointment for the said post of Waterman.
7. On 31.03.2004, said Suresh Kumar relieved from his duty as
Waterman.
8. Thereafter on 20.04.2005, respondent no. 1 issued a letter to
respondent no. 2, while directing to issue an appointment letter to the
petitioner immediately.
9. Being aggrieved, Mr. Suresh Kumar above named filed a
petition bearing no. W.P. (C) 8938/2005, before this Court while
challenging his termination.
10. Vide order dated 08.09.2006, this Court dismissed the aforesaid
Writ Petition on the ground that post of Waterman being unreserved,
the benefit of age relaxation could not be granted to Mr. Suresh
Kumar.
11. Thereafter, the petitioner made representation vide its
representation dated 15.09.2009, 30.09.2009 and 03.11.2009 to
respondent no. 2 for issuance of appointment letter, but there was no
response from their side.
12. Having no option and the due to the inaction of the respondents,
the petitioner filed a Writ Petition before this Court vide W.P.(C) No.
13225/2009, but the same was dismissed on the ground of delay and
latches alone, vide order dated 18.11.2009.
13. Being aggrieved, petitioner preferred LPA vide no. 9/2010.
Vide order dated 11.01.2010, the Division Bench observed in the
above mentioned LPA that in view of the letter dated 05.12.2009, a
fresh cause of action arose in favour of the petitioner, accordingly
permitted the petitioner to withdraw his LPA, with the liberty to take
appropriate proceedings.
14. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this
Court to the communication dated 05.12.2009 issued by Education
Officer (Zone-VII). The said is as under:-
"As per the Court case regarding the post is
decided, therefore it is requested to comply with the
directions issued by Directorate of Education vide
letter no. DDE-NYZ-VII/2005/167dated 20.04.2005
regarding appointment of Sh. Jeewa Anand to the
post of Waterman."
15. Since respondent no. 2 did not comply the said order, petitioner
filed the instant petition.
16. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly, the post
of Waterman was abolished vide circular dated 25.06.2010, but the
petitioner applied for the post when the post was very much in
existence and even the instant petition was filed before the issuance of
this circular. Therefore, if the circular has been issued by the
Department subsequently that seems to be malafide. Thus the
respondents have achieved the goal, which they otherwise could not
do.
17. It is pertinent to mention here that respondent no. 1has
supported the petitioner as this issue is concerned.
18. Respondent no. 2 has filed its reply, where, it is stated that vide
letter dated 20.04.2005 of the respondent no. 1, the panel of selection
list against the post of Waterman, which was duly filled up by the
appointment of Sh. Suresh Kumar, became in operational after the
lapse of 1 year, so the School Managing Committee decided to fill up
the post by fresh appointment for which respondent no. 2 sought
clearance and approval for the same from respondent no.1, which was
declined.
19. It is admitted in reply that the appointment of Sh. Suresh
Kumar was cancelled vide letter dated 16.03.2004 of respondent no. 1
to respondent no. 2. Accordingly, he was relieved from his duty w.e.f.
31.03.2004.
20. After going through the reply filed by the respondent no. 2, no
cogent reasons have been given, why the petitioner was not appointed
despite the fact that their request for fresh appointment was declined
by respondent no. 1. In fact, the circular issued very belatedly and the
petitioner was moving Pillar to Post. Hence his name was not
considered. It shows the arbitrariness on the part of respondent no. 2,
when respondent no. 1 had issued specific directions.
21. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussion
above, respondent no. 2 is directed to appoint the petitioner w.e.f
20.08.2005 with notional seniority.
22. Since the petitioner not worked for about 7 years, therefore, he
shall be entitled for his salary from the date he resumed the office.
23. Accordingly, respondent no. 2 shall issue appointment letter
within two weeks from today. Since respondent no. 1 had already
given the approval, therefore, no fresh approval is required from them.
24. I further make it clear that if the respondent no. 2 does not
comply this order within the specified period, petitioner shall be
entitled for the cost of Rs.50,000/-.
25. Accordingly, instant petition is allowed.
26. Since the main petition is allowed, CM. No. 915/2010 (Stay)
become infructuous and disposed of as such.
SURESH KAIT, J
MAY 07, 2012
jg
