Santosh Kumar Arya vs The Chief Secretary Govt. Of Nct & ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 1796 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                         WP(C) Nos.1093/2012 and 1095/2012

%                                                            April 22, 2013

1.    W.P.(C) No.1093/2012

SANTOSH KUMAR ARYA                                   ..... Petitioner
                Through:                 Mr. K.K. Jha, Advocate.

                          versus

THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF NCT & ORS. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Jagdeep Sharma, Advocate.

2.    W.P.(C) No.1095/2012

SH. AVNISH KUMAR                               ..... Petitioner
                          Through:       Mr. K.K. Jha, Advocate.

                          versus

THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF NCT & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Jagdeeep Sharma, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)



WP(C) Nos.1093 & 1095 of 2012                                            1 of 3
 W.P.(C) No.1093/2012

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner involving

Rule 110 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 seeking re-employment

for a period of two years on his retirement on 31.12.2010.

2. Admittedly, the date of retirement of the petitioner is

31.12.2010 and therefore if the petitioner wanted re-employment for two

years from the date of his retirement, then, the petitioner should have applied

for re-employment well before his retirement date or in any case

immediately after his retirement. Petitioner however applied for re-

employment only on 31.1.2012 (Annexure P-7). Petitioner applied because

the petitioner wanted to take benefit of the judgment dated 8.7.2011 in

W.P.(C) No.4703 of 2011 whereby principals were also held entitled as

teachers for two years of re-employment.

3. The writ petition is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed

because benefit of another judgment can be given to the petitioner only if the

petitioner had otherwise applied in time for re-employment. Merely because

in some other case an order is passed, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit

although the petitioner never applied in time for re-employment of two years

in terms of Rule 110 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973. It is not

WP(C) Nos.1093 & 1095 of 2012 2 of 3 permissible for any employee to sleep over the matter and thereafter seek re-

employment for a period of two years which in any case is not a matter of

right and now the settled law is that a teacher is only to be considered for re-

employment: there being no automatic re-employment vide Shashi Kohli

Vs. DOE (2011)179 DLT 440.

4. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, which is

accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

+ W.P.(C) No.1095/2012

5. In view of the conclusions given above, since the facts of the

present case are more or less identical to the facts in W.P.(C) No.1093/2012,

this writ petition is also dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own

costs.

                                              VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
APRIL 22, 2013
Ne




WP(C) Nos.1093 & 1095 of 2012                                            3 of 3