Savita Mittal vs The Director, Directorate Of ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 4658 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+            W.P.(C) No. 16424/2006 & CM 13426/2006 (stay)

%                                                    7th October, 2013

SAVITA MITTAL                                        ..... Petitioner
                          Through:       Mr. S.C. Singhal, Advocate


                          Versus


THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE
OF EDUCATION & ANR.                    ......Respondents

Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate for the R-1/Directorate of Education.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. Petitioner, by this writ petition, questions the action of the respondents

denying her employment as a Primary Teacher. Respondent no. 1 is the

Director of Education and the respondent no. 2 is the school. Respondent

no.2-school is an aided school and 95% of its finances are provided by

respondent no.1

2. The facts of the case are that petitioner along with one Sh. Vikas

Sharma appeared in the selection process for appointment of the two

Primary Teachers of respondent No. 2-school in 1996. The selection process

was completed as on 07.02.1996 when the interviews were conducted.

Petitioner is stated to be a selected candidate in the panel created for

appointment to the post of a Primary Teacher in the respondent no. 2-school.

It may be noted that there were two posts of Primary Teacher Sh. Vikas

Sharma was put at Serial No. 1 and the petitioner was put at Serial No. 2 in

the select list. No select list was however published and no appointments

were made. Sh. Vikas Sharma hence filed a writ petition in this Court being

W.P.(C) 878/1998 seeking appointment, and which writ petition was

allowed vide order dated 17.03.2006. At this stage, the respondent no. 2-

school in compliance of the order passed in the writ petition of Sh. Vikas

Sharma, appointed not only Sh. Vikas Sharma but also the present petitioner

as Primary Teachers. Since the respondent no. 2 is an aided school and

when the recommendations for appointment were sent to the respondent no.

1/Directorate of Education, Directorate of Education gave appointment to

Sh. Vikas Sharma but denied appointment to the petitioner in terms of the

impugned communications dated 14.09.2006 and 17.10.2006. Hence the

present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the cause of action in

favour of the petitioner arose in the year 2006 when the writ petition of Sh.

Vikas Sharma was allowed, and therefore, this writ petition is not barred by

delay and laches. It is argued that the entitlement of the petitioner to be

appointed as a Primary Teacher with the respondent no. 2-school arose when

the writ petition of Sh. Vikas Sharma was allowed in 2006. The right of Mr.

Vikas Sharma, in the opinion of this Court, was an independent right i.e it is

independent of the right claimed by the petitioner herein. There is no law

that if one of the selected candidates files a writ petition, and succeeds in

getting appointment, every other person must also be appointed and cause of

action only then arises for such candidates to seek appointment. If the

petitioner wanted appointment on the basis of selection in 1996, she could

not have waited till 2006 to file the present writ petition. If the petitioner

was really serious and interested, there was no reason for the petitioner to

not approach this Court in around 1996 or at the very best till around 1999-

2000 for seeking appointment. No doubt Limitation Act, 1963 does not

apply to a writ petition but the period provided therein is a good guide to

determine the issue of delay and laches. I cannot agree with the counsel for

the petitioner that petitioner had no means of knowing what was the decision

of the Selection Committee till 2006 inasmuch as surely law requires that if

a person has appeared in an interview and has not been communicated the

result within a reasonable period of time then such a person must show

interest by corresponding with the appropriate authority for finding out the

result of the selection process. It is not the legal position that a person can

sleep over the matter and in this case for a long period of time i.e about 10

years and suddenly assert a right simply because respondent no. 2 for

unexplained reasons while implementing the order delivered in the writ

petition of Sh. Vikas Sharma also surreptitiously included the name of the

petitioner herein for appointment as a Primary Teacher. Since the

respondent no. 2-school is an aided school and the respondent no. 1 gives

financial aid to the extent of 95% surely it is the respondent no. 1 who is

vitally interested, and as against this respondent No. 1, there cannot be

enforcement of a stale right of the 1996 in the year 2006. I may state that

respondent no. 1 in the counter-affidavit has taken up the defence that the

panel lapses after one year, and I do not find any illegality in this defence

inasmuch as a selection panel does not remain in existence for an

interminable period.

4. I may finally note that from the year 1996 till 2006 there is no

correspondence or any other single communication or any other

representation which is filed by the petitioner with the respondents, and

whereby, petitioner sought implementation of the result of the Selection

Committee held on 07.02.1996. Also there is no promise held out by the

respondent no. 1 during this period i.e 1996 to 2006 that the petitioner's case

was being considered by the respondent no. 1. Hence clearly this petition

filed in 2006 to enforce a right which came into existence in 1996 is barred

by delay and laches and that the select panel lapsed.

5. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed, leaving the parties

to bear their own costs.

OCTOBER 07, 2013                                  VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
godara