Ranjeet Kumar vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi & Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 4068 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  W.P.(C) No. 3502/2012 & CM 7373/2012 (Stay)

%                                              10th September , 2013

RANJEET KUMAR                                        ......Petitioner
                          Through:       Mr. Anil Kr. Chaudhary, Adv.


                          VERSUS

LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS.            ...... Respondents
                  Through:   Ms. Navratn Chaudhary and Ms. T.
                            Pongener, Advs. for R-1 and 2.

                                         Mr. R.K.Kapoor and Ms. Rekha Giri,
                                         Adv. for R-3.

                                         Mr. S.C.Meena, DEO, Zone-27.

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

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.    By this writ petition, petitioner who is an employee of the respondent

no.3-school seeks the relief for being appointed to the post of LDC by

promotion and after holding of DPC. Prayers are made for issuing of

directions to conduct the DPC for promoting the petitioner to the post of

LDC. I may note that in the prayer clauses there is a typing mistake for

holding of the DPC for the post of PGT (English). Counsel for the petitioner
WPC 3502/2012                                                            Page 1 of 3
 admits that this is a typographical error and the prayer is actually for the post

of LDC.


2.    On 18.4.2013, the following order was passed:-


      "Counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner will positively
      file an application for amendment, if so necessitated to point
      out as to whether the respondent no.3-school is governed by
      its own recruitment rules or it has adopted the recruitment
      rules of the Government of NCT of Delhi inasmuch as
      whereas the respondent no.3 states that post of LDC is to be
      filled in by direct recruitment, the petitioner claims that the
      post should be filled in by promotion.
      List on 10th September, 2013."
3.    An additional affidavit has been filed by the petitioner in which it is

conceded that the respondent no.3-school, which is a recognized school, is

governed by the recruitment rules framed by the Director of Education. The

Director of Education has filed its affidavit dated 17.4.2013, in which, in

response to paras 4 and 5 of the writ petition, it is stated that in terms of the

circular dated 27.10.1993 the post of LDC in government aided schools is to

be filled up by direct recruitment. Therefore, it is clear that in the case of the

petitioner that appointment of LDC in the respondent no.3-school has to be

by promotion and not by direct recruitment is not correct. Since the petition

of the petitioner is based on his claim for being appointed as LDC by

promotion, whereas the post in question of LDC in the respondent no.3 is to
WPC 3502/2012                                                                  Page 2 of 3
 be filled in by direct recruitment, no relief can be granted to the petitioner as

prayed.

4.    The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear

their own costs.




SEPTEMBER 10, 2013                             VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib