Samar Chakravarty vs Director Of Education, Govt. Of ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 3910 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  W.P.(C) No. 5536/2013


%                                                   3rd September, 2013

SAMAR CHAKRAVARTY                                    ..... Petitioner
               Through:                  Mr. Lohit Ganguly, Advocate.


                          Versus



DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.
                                            ..... Respondents
                 Through: Mr. Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate for
                          respondent No.1.


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

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.           Petitioner is an employee of the respondent No.2-school, which

is an aided school i.e 95% of the finances are provided by the Government

of NCT of Delhi.

2.           Petitioner seeks re-employment from the age of 60 years to 62

years. That a person can be re-employed from 60 to 62 years subject to


W.P.(C) No.5536/2013                                            Page 1 of 3
 fitness and vigilance clearance is clear from the circular of Government of

NCT of Delhi dated 29.1.2007. In fact, this aspect has been considered by a

learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Shashi Kohli Vs. DOE

(2011)179 DLT 440 and which judgment has been upheld by the Division

Bench in LPA Nos.414/2011 and 415/2011decided on 28.3.2012.

Therefore, petitioner is entitled to be considered and entitled to know the

reasons as to why he should not get benefit of circular dated 29.1.2007.

3.           So far as the aspect that even the Librarians are teachers, this

becomes clear from the circular of the Government of NCT of Delhi dated

21.1.2011. Petitioner who is a Librarian also will be entitled to the benefits

of the circular. In fact, I have had an occasion to consider a similar issue in

the case of Nutan Gulati Vs. Director of Education and Ors. in W.P.(C)

No.109/2013 decided on 9.7.2013 wherein I have by placing reliance upon

the judgment in the case of Shashi Kohli (supra) given the benefits to the

Librarians appointed in schools.

4.           In view of the above, it is directed that the present writ petition

be treated as a representation to the respondent No.1 for re-employment of

the petitioner upto 62 years and the respondent No.1 will now dispose of this

representation by a speaking order within a period of three weeks from

today, and in terms of the circular and earlier judgment of this Court referred

W.P.(C) No.5536/2013                                              Page 2 of 3
 to. Copy of the speaking order be sent to the petitioner and his counsel by

the Director of Education or his nominee.

5.          Writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.




SEPTEMBER 03, 2013                          VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

Ne