Director Of Education & Ors vs Kalpana Pandey
2012 Latest Caselaw 5635 Del

$~
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                  Date of Decision: 18th September, 2012

+                             LPA 640/2012

      DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION & ORS             ..... Appellants
                   Represented by: Mr.Aditya Madan, Adv.

                     versus

      KALPANA PANDEY                     ..... Respondent
                   Represented by: Nemo.
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

CM No.16441/2012 and CM No.16442/2012

1. Appeal has been filed with a delay of 253 days and there is a delay of re-filing by 34 days.

2. Reason given for delay in filing the appeal is that the matter was referred to the higher office and after obtaining permission the appeal was filed.

3. The reason is as vague as vagueness can be. How many people were involved in the decision making process? Nothing has been disclosed. In how many branches of the Education Department the file had to move? Nothing has been disclosed. The hierarchical structure of the decision making process has not been disclosed.

4. As it has evolved by the Courts in India, law pertaining to delay

being condoned in preferring appellate remedies is that a good and meritorious cause should not be sacrificed on the altar of rules of procedure. But, if the cause sought to be prosecuted is not meritorious, delay should not be condoned liberally.

5. Thus, we look at the cause sought to be projected in the appeal.

6. The respondent is a teacher in an aided school and has been working since July 05, 1993. The issue pertains to her right, as per her seniority, to be promoted as a Trained Graduate Teacher (English); initial appointment being as an Assistant Teacher.

7. The respondent has a Graduate degree as also a B.Ed. degree. As per the appellant she cannot be appointed/promoted as a TGT because while pursuing a bachelor degree course, she had studied English only in two out of three years' duration. Not that the rule so requires. It is a policy circular dated March 30, 2000 which so requires.

8. Noting that the respondent has a Post Graduate degree in English language i.e. M.A.(English), the learned Single Judge has granted relief to the respondent on two reasons. Firstly, that the recruitment rule does not specify as urged by the appellant and that a recruitment rule cannot be supplanted or abridged by an office order. Secondly, that the respondent has a Post Graduate degree in English language. The post to which, as per her seniority, she sought promotion was TGT (English).

9. The view taken by the learned Single Judge is a reasonable and a probable view, and is in any case of a kind where it cannot be said that the appellant has a meritorious claim and would suffer huge losses if the view is upheld.

10. Accordingly, finding no sufficient cause pleaded entitling

appellant to delay in preferring the appeal being condoned as also that the cause being pursued can hardly be called a meritorious cause, we dismiss CM No.16441/2012 and CM No.16442/2012.

LPA 640/2012

1. Since neither delay in preferring the appeal nor delay in re- filing the appeal has been condoned, we dismiss the appeal as not maintainable.

2. No costs.

CM No.16440/2012 Dismissed as infructuous.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(MANMOHAN SINGH) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 dk