Delhi High Court
Rakesh Kumar vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 23 January, 2014
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 23.01.2014
+ W.P.(C) 2121/2013
RAKESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
ADVOCATES WHO APPEARED IN THIS CASE:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. V.K. Tandon, Adv. for R-1 to 3
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
W.P.(C) 2121/2013 and CM No.4023/2013 (stay)
1. This writ petition has been filed to assail the order dated 14.02.2013
passed by respondent no.2. The consequential relief sought is for release of
salary alongwith all consequential benefits with effect from the date the
petitioner joined services of respondent no.4 i.e, 19.03.2012.
2. Briefly, the challenge arises in the background of the following broad
facts. Respondent no.4 school, which is a school receiving aid from
respondent nos. 1 to 3, issued an advertisement dated 21.10.2011 inviting
applications for the post of Physical Education Teacher (in short PET) in the
general category. The petitioner along with his application submitted two
certificates dated 18.04.2007 and 01.11.2011 to demonstrate his experience
for the post qua which he had filed his application with respondent no.4
school. The first certificate is dated 18.04.2007, which has been issued by
Mount Abu Sr. Secondary School, while the second certificate which is
dated 01.11.2011 has been issued by Parjapati Shiksha Samajik Utthan
Sanstha. The first certificate covers the period between 04.08.2003 and
31.03.2007. The second certificate covers the period between 09.04.2007
and 01.11.2011.
3. The petitioner was requested to appear before the Staff Selection
Committee (SSC) for an interview. Apparently, the SSC, included one Dr.
O.P. Singh, as a nominee of the Director of Education, i.e., the
representative of respondent nos. 1 to 3. At the deliberations of the SSC
held on 17.03.2012, petitioner was selected and placed in the first position
on the selected list.
4. Consequent thereto, on 19.03.2012, an appointment letter was issued
to the petitioner by respondent no.4 school. Since then, upon joining
service, the petitioner has continued to serve respondent no.4 school.
5. It appears that the petitioner was not receiving his salary in view of
the fact that 95% of his salary component had to be provided for, by
respondent nos. 1 to 3; on account of the fact that respondent no.4 was an
aided school, as has been indicated hereinabove at the very outset.
6. The petitioner avers that a representation for release of salary was
made to the respondents in this behalf on 03.12.2012. It is in this context,
that respondent no.2, passed the impugned order dated 14.02.2013 rejecting
the appointment of the petitioner to the post of PET (general category) made
by respondent no.4 school. This order was passed on the ground that it
violated Rule 97 of the Delhi Education Rules, 1973 (in short the Rules).
Rule 97 requires that where relaxation is sought by the management
committee of any school qua essential qualifications for recruitment of any
employee, such recommendations of the managing committee shall not be
given effect to unless such recommendation has been previously approved
by the Director of Education. It is clear that Rule 97 has to be read
alongwith the succeeding Rule, which is Rule 98. In particular, Rule 98(4)
provides for deemed approval where objections are not raised to the
appointment made by the managing committee within a period of 15 days.
7. Arguments on this aspect of the matter were heard at some length by
me on 21.01.2014, when I had caricatured the objections of respondent nos.1
to 3 to the selection of the petitioner by respondent no.4 school. For the
sake of brevity, the said order is extracted hereinafter :-
"1. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the order
dated 14.2.2013 passed by respondent No.2. He says that the
order cannot be sustained as the only ground on which the
impugned order has been passed is that the petitioner,
according to the respondent, was over-age by two years and
six months, the maximum age limit being 30 years, as per the
recruitment rules for the post of Physical Education Teacher
(in short PET).
2. Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the two
certificates issued by his earlier employers dated 18.4.2007
and 1.11.2011. He states that in terms of the provisions of the
circular dated 29.10.1975, the petitioner is entitled to age
relaxation; though limited to a maximum period of fifteen (15)
years.
3. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that a
perusal of first certificate, which is dated 18.4.2007, would
show that it is authenticated by the Education Officer; an
officer of respondent No.2. The learned counsel also submits
that minutes of the meeting dated 17.3.2012 would show that
the nominees of respondent No.2 were present in the
proceedings, whereby the petitioner's appointment to the post
of PET, was cleared unanimously.
4. Mr. Tandon says that he will examine the case record
to confirm whether the petitioner would be entitled to age
relaxation, as claimed.
5. List on 23.1.2014"
8. Mr. Tandon, the learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3 has
reverted with instructions. After perusing the record, he states that the
certificate dated 18.04.2007, has been authenticated by the Education
Officer. He further states that if the experience gathered by the petitioner
while working with Mount Abu Sr. Secondary School between the period
04.08.2003 and 31.03.2007 is taken into account then, the petitioner would
be entitled to selection in terms of circular dated 29.10.1975; which enables
the petitioner to take benefit of such experience. In other words, the
petitioner would be entitled to age relaxation.
9. Mr. Tandon also states that the record shows that the nominee of
respondent nos.1 to 3, Dr. O.P. Singh did not register his disagreement, if
any, at the selection committee meeting held on 17.03.2012. He says that in
these circumstances, Rule 98(4) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973
will get triggered. Resultantly, it is his submission that a situation of
deemed approval will apply.
9.1 Mr. Tandon, however, says that a show cause notice was issued to Dr.
O.P. Singh and he has also been penalized. For this supposed infraction,
Mr. Tandon says that Dr. O.P. Singh has been mulcted with the punishment
of down grading of two increments.
9.2 These are facets, however, which have not been brought on record by
way of an affidavit.
10. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, not only Rule 98(4) got
triggered, but the petitioner was entitled to age relaxation, as indicated
above, in terms of circular dated 29.10.1975 even according to Mr. Tandon.
Therefore, disagreement if any made known could not have impacted the
petitioner's selection. Only to be noted, the deemed approval aspect is
admittedly covered by a judgment of this court in Smt. Promila Dixit Vs.
Govt. Of NCT of Delhi and Ors. passed in WP (C) 1234/2010 dated
26.11.2010.
11. In these circumstances, the writ petition will have to be allowed. It is
ordered accordingly. The impugned order dated 14.02.2013 passed by
respondent no.2 is set aside. The petitioner will be entitled to salary and
other consequential benefits from the date he joined the service of
respondent no.4 i.e., 19.03.2012. The parties will, however, bear their own
costs.
12. With the aforesaid observations in place, the writ petition and the
pending application are disposed of.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
JANUARY 23, 2014
yg
