Sumeet Kaur vs Directorate Of Education And Ors
2013 Latest Caselaw 3846 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         W.P.(C) No. 3343/2012

%                                                   30th August , 2013

SUMEET KAUR                                         ..... Petitioner
                          Through:       Mr. Hanu Bhaskar, Advocate.


                          versus



DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION AND ORS ..... Respondents
                 Through: Mr. J. K. Sharma, Advocate for
                          respondent No.1.
                          Mr. Ashok Kashyap, Advocate for
                          respondent No.2.
                          Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate for
                          respondent No.3.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

C.M. No.12145/2013

             Application is allowed and the counter affidavit filed by the

respondent No.2 is taken on record.

             C.M. stands disposed of.


W.P.(C) No.3343 /2012                                           Page 1 of 3
 + W.P.(C) No.3343/2012


1.           This writ petition impugns the appointment of respondent No.3

as TGT (English) in respondent No.2-school. On a query put to counsel for

the petitioner, it is admitted that respondent No.3 was appointed as TGT in

the respondent No.2-school way back in the year 1999 and regularized by

the respondent No.1/Directorate of Education in the year 2001. Therefore,

this writ petition filed in the year 2012 is liable to be dismissed on the

ground of delay and laches inasmuch as the appointment which is challenged

of respondent No.3 was made thirteen years back in the year 1999 and

confirmed in the year 2001 i.e eleven years back.

2.           I put a query to the counsel for the petitioner that whether the

petitioner has made any averment in the writ petition that petitioner was not

aware of the appointment of respondent No.3 as TGT in the year 1999 and

confirmed in the year 2001. Counsel for the petitioner on detailed

examination of the writ petition could not point out any averment made in

the writ petition that petitioner did not have knowledge of appointment and

regularization of respondent No.3 in the years 1999 and 2001 respectively.

3.           In view of the above, after a delay of about 11 years, the writ

petition cannot be filed to challenge an appointment and confirmation
W.P.(C) No.3343 /2012                                           Page 2 of 3
 thereof. I may note that fight is actually with respect to promotion post of

PGT and for which review DPC has to be held in terms of order dated

9.3.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C)

No.585/2008.       Review DPC is still to be conducted.       It is only after

declaration of result of DPC, it would be known that whether the petitioner

or the respondent no.3 is or is not successful in seeking promotion.

Therefore, really even qua the issue of promotion there is no cause of action,

at this stage, and the writ petition is pre-mature on the aspect of entitlement

of promotion of either the petitioner or respondent No.3 or any other

successful candidate.

4.           Writ petition is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear

their own costs.




AUGUST30, 2013                                VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

Ne