Delhi High Court
Kunwar Dev Raj Singh Raghav vs Lt. Governor & Ors. on 19 October, 2012
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 19th October, 2012
+ W.P.(C) No.3233/1999
KUNWAR DEV RAJ SINGH RAGHAV ..... Petitioner
Through: None.
Versus
LT. GOVERNOR & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Adv. for
R-1&2.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
1. None appears for the petitioner; considering that the writ petition is of
the year 1999, it is not deemed expedient to await the petitioner any further.
With the assistance of the counsel for the respondents the file has been
perused.
2. The petitioner was working as a Yoga teacher with the respondent
no.3 Hope Hall Middle School, Wazir Nagar, New Delhi - 110 003, an
aided school, since 16th July, 1986; during the said employment he did his
Post Graduation in History in the year 1988 and thereafter acquired B.Ed.
qualification in the year 1989 and got the said qualifications entered in the
service record; it is his case that having acquired the qualification of M.A.,
B.Ed. he was eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of
Headmaster/PGT; that he had already been taking classes in the subjects of
History, Hindi, Social Studies etc. in the school in addition to Yoga teaching
and for this reason also was fully equipped to be considered for promotion to
the post of Headmaster/PGT and is also eligible for the said post as per the
Recruitment Rules (RRs) of the respondents; that on 28th February, 1999 the
post of Headmaster fell vacant and a DPC was convened on 9th March, 1999
and though the petitioner was in the list of probable candidates, but his
candidature was rejected without consideration on the plea that being a Yoga
teacher he cannot be considered for promotion to the post of
Headmaster/PGT and the respondent no.4 Smt. Sneh Tuli was recommended
for the said post and promoted as Headmistress; that his representation was
also rejected. This petition was filed impugning the minutes of the DPC
meeting held on 9th March, 1999 and the appointment of the respondent no.4
to the post of Headmistress and seeking a direction for consideration of the
petitioner for appointment to the said post.
3. Rule was issued in the petition on 24th May, 1999.
4. The respondents no.1&2 i.e. GNCTD and the Directorate of
Education in their counter affidavit have pleaded that Yoga teachers even if
acquire the Post Graduate qualification, are not entitled to be promoted to
the post of Headmaster or PGT (except PGT Physical Sciences) and as per
Notification dated 4th November, 1999 only the Trained Graduate Teachers
(TGT) possessing the Post Graduate Diploma of two years duration with five
years of regular service in the grade are to be considered; that though under
the earlier Rule notified on 26th February, 1996, TGTs in miscellaneous
categories were also to be considered for promotion to other categories
subject to fulfillment of educational qualifications for the post, but the same
had created a number of difficulties in implementation and was also found to
be in violation of the orders of the Government of India that TGTs in their
own subject and Language Teachers in language concerned alone should be
promoted and if the cadres are combined it created enormous administrative
problems like fixing of inter se seniority; thus the Rules notified on 26th
February, 1996 were never implemented and were kept in abeyance and
finally the new Rules vide Notification dated 4th November, 1999 were
brought. It is further pleaded that even if a Yoga teacher takes any general
classes occasionally, it would not confer on him/her the status of a teacher of
other subjects. It is yet further pleaded that though the post of Headmaster is
a promotional post but promotion cannot be given merely on the basis of
seniority and in the absence of eligibility qualifications.
5. The petitioner filed a rejoinder to the aforesaid counter affidavit
pleading that the Notification of 4th November, 1999 had no relevance; that
the Notification of 26th February, 1996 had been implemented; instances of
three Yoga teachers who were promoted as PGTs including in other subjects
were given.
6. The respondent no.3 School in its counter affidavit challenged the
very maintainability of the writ petition. It was also pleaded that the
appointment of the respondent no.4 was in accordance with the RRs which
had not been challenged; else the contents of the counter affidavit of the
respondents No. 1 and 2 were reiterated. It was also the plea that the post of
a Headmaster is a selection post and no interference with the selection made
was called for.
7. The petitioner filed a rejoinder to the said counter affidavit also.
8. Though a rejoinder by the petitioner to the counter affidavit of the
respondent no.4 is on record but no counter affidavit of the respondent no.4
is found on the file.
9. On the application of the petitioner for interim relief, vide order dated
28th November, 2002 it was directed that promotion made will be subject to
the outcome of the writ petition. On 17th March, 2003, the order records, the
petitioner stated that the respondent no.4 was retiring on 30 th April, 2003; a
direction was sought for consideration of his name for promotion. This
Court however ordered that in case the petitioner is eligible according to the
Rules for promotion to the post of Headmaster, he be considered along with
the other candidates. It appears that the petitioner was again not appointed
and a fresh application was filed on 16th April, 2004 whereon it was directed
that the appointment to the post of Headmaster would be subject to further
orders in the writ petition. The petitioner filed yet another application being
CM No.1168/2010 seeking to restrain the respondent no.3 School from
promoting any person to the post of Headmaster till final decision of the writ
petition; it was also pleaded that vide order dated 30 th November, 2007 the
petitioner had been assigned the duty of Officiating Head Master till regular
Headmaster/Headmistress was appointed. The said relief was also however
declined to the petitioner.
10. The counsel for the respondents no.1&2 has been heard. She has
drawn attention to page 21 of the paper book being the RRs dated 19 th May,
1976 for the post of Headmaster/Headmistress of Middle Schools under the
Directorate of Education to show, that the post is a selection post and the
method of recruitment is by promotion failing which by direct recruitment;
that in case of recruitment by promotion, it is the TGT, Language Teachers,
having five years regular service in the grade who are eligible. Mrs. Ahlawat
counsel for the respondents no.1&2 has contended that Trained Language
Teachers are teachers in a subject like English, Hindi, Math, Science,
History etc. and would not include Yoga. Attention is also invited to the
Notification dated 26th February, 1996 supra vide which in Column No.11,
the words Yoga/Music/Drawing teachers were included but which were
subsequently excluded vide Notification of 4th November, 1999.
11. I am satisfied with the stand of the respondents that the petitioner
being a Yoga teacher was not entitled to be considered for the post of
Headmaster. Moreover, no challenge to the Rules aforesaid has been made.
It may further be highlighted that the post is a selection post and even if the
petitioner were to be held to be eligible, no error calling for interference can
be found in the decision of the respondents of selecting a teacher in subjects
like Science, English, Hindi, History etc., even if junior to the petitioner
over the petitioner for the said post.
There is thus no merit in the petition; the same is dismissed.
No costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
OCTOBER 19, 2012
pp
