N.R. Parashar vs Managing Committee Cambridge ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 1234 Del

*               IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                               W.P.(C) No. 2625/2014

%                                                         11th February, 2015

N.R. PARASHAR                                            ..... Petitioner
                                Through:   Ms. Indrani Ghosh, Advocate
                       versus

MANAGING COMMITTEE CAMBRIDGE SCHOOL
SRINIWASPURI & ORS.                             ..... Respondents

Through: Ms. Zehra Khan, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 & 4.

Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate for respondent no. 4.

Ms. Bandana Shukla, Advocate for Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Advocate for respondent no. 3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. Petitioner who was working as the Vice-Principal with the respondent

no. 1/school, and who superannuated in April 2014, seeks the relief for being

considered for extension of services upto the age of 62 years in terms of

Rule 110 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973. Petitioner also seeks

to take benefit of Bye-Law 30.1 of CBSE affiliation Bye-Laws to argue that

if the petitioner retires in the middle of the academic session then the

petitioner must retire at the end of the academic session. The third prayer

made by the petitioner is that even if no extension has to be granted and the

petitioner is going to retire in the middle of the session, then, the respondent

no. 1/school in accordance with the extant circulars of the Directorate of

Education, must consider the petitioner for re-employment upto the age of

62 years.

2. So far as the third prayer of entitlement of the petitioner to be considered

for re-employment is concerned, I have had an occasion to consider this aspect

in various judgments and one such judgment is the judgment in the case of

Latha M. Palat Vs. Director of Education & Anr., W.P.(C) 5515/2013 decided

on 12.12.2013 and in which judgment I have by following the earlier judgments

of this Court held that there is an entitlement to be considered though there is

no entitlement to re-employment. In the case of Latha M. Palat (supra) I have

considered the earlier judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court passed

in the case of Shashi Kohli Vs. Director of Education & Anr., 179 (2011)

DLT 440 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.

414/2011 dated 28.3.2012 by which the appeal against the judgment of the

learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Shashi Kohli (supra) was

dismissed. Therefore, adopting the reasoning given in the case of Latha M.

Palat (supra), the respondent no. 1 is directed that it should consider the

petitioner's request for re-employment, of course in accordance with the

extant circulars of the Directorate of Education, if the respondent no. 1

wants to give re-employment to the petitioner upto the age of 62 years. The

respondent no. 1/school will be bound to act in terms of the extant circulars

and the respondent no. 1 is only directed to consider the petitioner for re-

employment in terms of the extant circulars of the Directorate of Education.

3. So far as the first relief i.e with respect to entitlement of the petitioner

for extension of his services upto the age of 62 years is concerned, the

argument made by placing reliance upon Rule 110 of the Delhi School

Education Rules, 1973 is misconceived because Rule 110 of the Delhi

School Education Rules, 1973 only provides for a suo moto decision being

taken by the school and there is no provision in the said rule which provides

that an employee such as the petitioner is entitled to make representation and

which must be considered by the school and disposed of by a reasoned

order. Relevant portion of Rule 110 of the Delhi School Education Rules,

1973 reads as under:

"Rule 110 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973

110. Retirement age- (1) Except where an existing employee is entitled to have a higher age of retirement, every employee of a recognised private school, whether aided or not, shall hold office until he attains the age of 58 years.

Provided that the managing committee may grant extension to a teacher for a period not exceeding two years in the aggregate, if in the opinion of the managing committee such teacher is fit for such extension and has no mortal or physical incapacity which would disentitle him to get such extension :

Provided further that no such extension shall be granted in the case of a teacher of an aided school except with the previous approval of the Director:"

4. A reading of the first proviso of sub-Rule (1) of Rule 110 of the

Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 shows that it is the school which suo

moto decides and grants extension to a teacher for a period not exceeding

two years if in the opinion of the school such teacher is fit for such

extension. There is no procedure prescribed for a representation made to

the school by an employee for re-employment, and it is the sweet will of

the school to decide as to whether or not it wants to give extension to a

teacher. In view of the language of Rule 110 of the Delhi School

Education Rules, 1973, no teacher/employee can claim that he/she is

entitled to make representation and the school must decide such

representation by a speaking order. I may also state that merely because

there is an expression "may" in the first proviso to Rule 110 of the Delhi

School Education Rules, 1973, it will not mean that the

petitioner/employee is entitled to make representation to the school. The

first proviso of Rule 110 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 only

provides that it is for the school to only consider suo moto extension of

the retirement upto the age of 62 years and nothing more. The first relief

claimed by the petitioner is, therefore, rejected.

5. Even the second relief claimed by the petitioner that if the petitioner

retires in the middle of the academic session then he must be retired at the

end of the academic session is a misconceived prayer because a reference

to the Bye-Laws of the CBSE shows that either the school makes its own

rules or the school is bound by the rules which will be framed by the State

Act and therefore once the schools in Delhi are governed by the Delhi

School Education Act & Rules, 1973, the CBSE Bye-Laws will not apply

and what will apply is the Delhi School Education Act & Rules and the

applicable circulars as issued by the Directorate of Education. The second

argument urged on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was entitled

to continue till the completion of the academic session in view of the Bye-

Law 30.1 of the CBSE Bye-Laws is also therefore rejected because CBSE

Bye-Laws do not apply to the respondent no.1/school.

6. In view of the above, I allow this writ petition to the limited extent

that the case of the petitioner for re-employment upto the age of 62 years

will be considered by the respondent no. 1/school in accordance with the

applicable circulars and guidelines of the Directorate of Education. The

respondent no. 1 seeks and is granted eight weeks time to take a decision

on the representation of the petitioner with respect to entitlement or

otherwise for re-employment of the petitioner with the respondent no.

1/school. It is clarified that the present writ petition is treated as a

representation to the respondent no. 1/school.

7. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of to the limited extent as

stated in para 6 above. No costs.

FEBRUARY 11, 2015                                   VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
godara