Sh.Mahabir Singh vs The Administrator Govt. Of Nct Of ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 112 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                           WP(C) No.2009/1995

%                                                       January 08, 2013

SH.MAHABIR SINGH                                          ...... Petitioner
                            Through:     Mr. U.S.Chaudhary, Adv.


                            VERSUS


THE ADMINISTRATOR GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ...... Respondent

Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India has been filed by the petitioner-Sh.Mahabir Singh seeking benefits

of employment from 8.8.1977 instead of from 1.7.1984 which has been

granted by the Director of Education/respondent No.2.

2. The facts of the case are that petitioner claims to have been

appointed as a TGT (Hindi) in the school-Vijay Jyoti Co-Education Middle

School, Usmanpur, Delhi-53. A typed copy of the appointment letter of the

petitioner as TGT (Hindi) has been filed as annexure P-1 (page 13 to the

petition). The petitioner claims that the school was a recognized school

when the petitioner took employment with the school and which was

thereafter granted grant-in-aid by the Directorate of Education on 20.1.1981

with retrospective effect from 1.8.1979. The petitioner pleads that at the

time of ordering grant-in-aid, three posts of language teachers were

sanctioned and of which two posts were given to TGT (Hindi) and one post

was given to TGT (Sanskrit). The post of TGT (Sanskrit) was given to one

Sh.B.N.Tripathi and which is not in issue because the petitioner claims

benefit of the post of TGT in Hindi. So far as the two posts of TGT (Hindi)

are concerned, one post was granted on the date of granting of grant-in-aid

to one Sh. Dharamviri Devi who, the petitioner does not dispute, was senior

to him. The petitioner basically disputes the appointment granted as TGT

(Hindi) to one Sh.Hari Chand who has been arrayed as respondent No.5 to

the present petition. The petitioner pleads that firstly the petitioner was

appointed not as TGT (General) but as TGT (Hindi) when he was appointed

on 8.8.1977 and that Sh.Hari Chand/respondent No.5 though was appointed

earlier in the year 1973, however, was appointed to the post of TGT

(General) and not TGT (Hindi) and therefore so far as the post of TGT

(Hindi) is concerned, it is the petitioner who had to get appointed to the post

of TGT (Hindi) with effect from the date of his appointment in the school

i.e. 8.8.1977.

3. There are two basic issues which call for determination in the

present petition. The first issue is whether the petitioner was appointed as

TGT (Hindi) or TGT (General) when he was appointed by the school on

8.8.1977 and the second issue is whether the respondent No.5/Sh.Hari

Chand was appointed as TGT (Hindi) or TGT (General) when he was

appointed by the school in the year 1973. For the sake of completion of

narration, I must state that the school as on the date of filing of the writ

petition was taken over by the Administrator of the Government of National

Capital Territory of Delhi.

4. So far as the first issue as to whether the petitioner was

appointed as TGT (Hindi) or TGT (General) on 8.8.1977, the petitioner has

relied upon his appointment letter filed as Annexure P-1 (page 13 to the

petition). A reference to this document shows that this is only a typed copy

and neither the original nor the photocopy of the original document has been

filed. Since there was an issue as to whether the petitioner was appointed on

8.8.1977 as TGT (Hindi) or TGT (General), it was incumbent upon the

petitioner in this writ petition which is now pending since over 18 years to

file his original letter of appointment, but the petitioner has failed to do the

same. I am saying this more so because the respondents No. 1 to

3/Directorate of Education and the Administrator have filed a counter

affidavit and annexed therewith as Annexure-C, photocopy of the

appointment letter of the petitioner and which shows quite clear overwriting

and manipulation after the expression TGT i.e some other expression was

written but it has been changed to '(Hindi)'. The counter affidavit of

respondents No. 1 to 3 states that this manipulation was done by the then

Principal-Sh.Pheru Singh of the school. In view of all the aforesaid facts

especially taking into account that petitioner only filed a typed copy of the

appointment letter and neither the original nor the photocopy of the original

and Department has filed photocopy of the appointment letter of the

petitioner which shows overwriting/manipulation after the expression TGT

of (Hindi), I am of the opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out a

case that the appointment of the petitioner was as TGT (Hindi) on 8.8.1977.

5. Further, the petitioner is not correct in stating that the

respondent No.5-Sh.Hari Chand was appointed as TGT (General) and not

TGT (Hindi). Once again, the petitioner has filed only a typed copy of the

appointment letter of the respondent No.5/Sh.Hari Chand showing as TGT

(General), however the respondent No.5/Sh.Hari Chand has alongwith his

affidavit filed a photocopy of his appointment letter dated 12.7.1973 which

shows the appointment of respondent No.5/Sh.Hari Chand as language

teacher (Hindi) and there is no overwriting or manipulation on this

appointment letter dated 12.7.1973 that the appointment was as a language

teacher (General) and thereafter it has been manipulated/overwritten to make

it language teacher (Hindi).

6. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that neither the

petitioner was appointed as TGT (Hindi) with effect from 8.8.1977 and also

that the respondent No.5/Sh.Hari Chand was in fact appointed earlier than

the petitioner as TGT (Hindi) in the year 1973 and that too not as TGT

(General) as alleged by the petitioner.

7. In my opinion, there is another reason for me to dismiss the writ

petition because the petitioner was conveyed appointment to the post of

language teacher by the letter dated 27.5.1987 issued by the Directorate of

Education, however, the present writ petition is filed as many as seven years

later. Though on behalf of the petitioner, it is sought to be argued that the

petitioner had made representation as to manipulation of school record and

hence the delay, however, merely because some show-cause notice was

issued to the school, cannot mean that there was manipulation of record as

there is no final order and the petitioner ought to have filed this petition

within a reasonable time from 27.5.87 to claim benefits denied to him on

account of his alleged appointment as language teacher i.e TGT (Hindi) only

from 1.7.1984 and not 8.8.1977. In any case, even on merits as stated above

the petitioner has no merits in his case.

8. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed leaving the

parties to bear their own costs.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J JANUARY 08, 2013 ak