Ms.Parveen vs Management, Little Flowers ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 936 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                           W.P.(C) No. 180/2012
%                                                           25th February, 2013

MS.PARVEEN                                                      ...... Petitioner
                            Through:     Mr. M.P.Singh Rathee, Advocate.


                            VERSUS

MANAGEMENT, LITTLE FLOWERS PUBLIC SR. SEC. SCHOOL & ANR.
                                                   ...... Respondent
                 Through: Mr. S.B.Tripathi, Adv. for R-1.
                                         Mr. Alok Gupta, Adv. for Ms. Purnima
                                         Maheshwari, Adv. for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

    To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.             By the present writ petition the petitioner seeks re-employment upto

the age of 62 years after superannuating at the age of 60 years.

2.             This issue is no longer res integra that the entitlement of a person is

only to be considered for employment and there is no automatic right to re-

employment vide Chander Prabha Sood vs Director of Education and Anr., 179

(2011) DLT 486. There are also similar other judgments of this Court.




W.P.(C) No.180/2012                                                       Page 1 of 3
 3.          I may state that it was contended on behalf of the respondent

no.2/Director of Education that the aforesaid issue of re-employment upto the age

of 62 years cannot apply to the respondent school which is an unaided private

school, but, I am not able to accept this argument inasmuch as all schools, whether

aided or unaided, are bound to act in terms of the applicable provisions of the

Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973. In fact even the unaided minority

schools are also governed by the different Sub-Sections of Section 8 of the Delhi

School Education Act (except Section 8(2) which deals with the issue of requiring

prior permission of the Director of Education before terminating the service of an

employee/teacher) as so held in the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of

G.Vallikumari Vs. Andhra Education Society and others, (2010) 2 SCC 497 and

Sindhi Education Society vs Chief Secretary, Govt.of NCT of Delhi (2010) 8 SCC

49.

4.          In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and disposed of by

directing the respondent no.1 School to consider the issue of re-employment of the

petitioner upto the age of 62 years in accordance with law. The order which is

passed by the respondent no.1 school be communicated to the petitioner within a

period of two months from today.




W.P.(C) No.180/2012                                                    Page 2 of 3
 5.          In case the petitioner has any grievance, the petitioner will be at

liberty to approach a Court of law on the order being passed by respondent no.1.

6.          If the petitioner has not made any representation to the school, then,

the petitioner will make the necessary representation to the school seeking re-

employment, giving the detailed facts, within a period of one week from today.

7.          Writ petition is allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid

observations.




FEBRUARY 25, 2013                                 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

nt