Delhi High Court
Smt. Mamta Chaturvedi vs The Management Of New Greenfield ... on 26 August, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 2748/1999
% 26th August , 2013
SMT. MAMTA CHATURVEDI ......Petitioner
Through: None.
VERSUS
THE MANAGEMENT OF NEW GREENFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOL AND
ANR. ...... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. By this writ petition, petitioner prays for a direction that she be
permitted to join duties with the respondent No.1-school and she should be
paid salary at the same rates as being paid in the schools run by the Delhi
Administration.
2. Petitioner was appointed as a language teacher on 7.12.1991.
From 1.4.1999 petitioner was asked not to perform her duties i.e petitioner's
services are said to have been terminated w.e.f 1.4.1999.
3. A reading of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No.1
shows that appointment of the petitioner in the year 1991 is not disputed.
W.P.(C) No.2748/1999 Page 1 of 4
Two defences are raised in the counter-affidavit. First is that the respondent
No.1-school is an unrecognized school and therefore provisions of the Delhi
School Education Act and Rules, 1973 will not apply, and the second
defence is that petitioner was only appointed on contractual basis and
therefore her services could be terminated in terms of the contract.
4. In my opinion, the writ petition is bound to be allowed for the
reasons stated hereinafter:-
(i) Though the respondent No.1-school states that the petitioner is
only a contractual employee, however, Supreme Court in its judgment in the
case of Management Committee of Montfort Senior Secondary School Vs.
Shri Vijay Kumar And Ors., (2005) 7 SCC 472 has held that services of a
teacher have a statutory flavor in accordance with the Delhi School
Education Act and Rules, 1973 and such services can only be terminated by
following the provisions of Rules 118 to 120 of the Delhi School Education
Rules, 1973. Therefore, the contention of the respondent No.1-school that
petitioner is a contractual employee does not take the case of the respondent
No.1 further to hold that the petitioner is not entitled to benefits of
permanent employment in terms of Delhi School Education Act and Rules,
1973. Section 10(1) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 hence entitles
the petitioner to the monetary benefits claimed.
W.P.(C) No.2748/1999 Page 2 of 4
(ii) Even if the petitioner has been treated as an ad hoc or
contractual employee such employment actually can be said to be equal to
the services of a probationer. I have recently held in the case of Hamdard
Public School Vs. Directorate of Education and Anr. in W.P.(C)
No.8652/2011 decided on 25.7.2013 that the probation period can be upto
three years, from three years to five years for the reasons which are
justiciable in Court, and in rarest of rare cases for six years. In the present
case, employment of the petitioner with the respondent No.1-school is well
over six years. Petitioner will therefore get benefit of ratio of the judgment
in the case of Hamdard Public School (supra) and she would therefore be
deemed to have been confirmed in her post w.e.f the fourth year after her
joining the services.
(iii) Contention of the respondent No.1 that since it is an
unrecognized school and therefore provisions of Section 10 of the Delhi
School Education Act, 1973 will not apply is an argument without substance
in view of Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Social
Jurist, a Civil Rights Group Vs. GNCT & Ors. 147 (2008) DLT 729 which
holds that the provisions of Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973
apply even to unrecognized schools which are run in Delhi.
W.P.(C) No.2748/1999 Page 3 of 4
5. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. Termination
of the petitioner is held to be bad as it is without following the procedure
prescribed in Rules 118 to 120 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973.
Petitioner will be treated as a regular employee of the respondent No.1-
school and confirmed from the first date after expiry of three years of
appointment. The petitioner will now be paid salary from the date she joins
the respondent No.1-school. So far as the arrears are concerned, the
respondent No.1-school will pass appropriate orders in terms of Rule 121 of
the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 as expeditious as possible on the
petitioner so asking the school. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
AUGUST 26, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
