Delhi High Court
Mrs. Archana Chugh vs The Managing Committee, Ramjas ... on 2 February, 2015
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
15-16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3795/2014 & W.P.(C) 5013/2014
% 2nd February, 2015
W.P.(C) 3795/2014
MRS. ARCHANA CHUGH ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Adv.
versus
THE MANAGING COMMITTEE,
RAMJAS SCHOOL AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Sr. Adv. with
Mr.Atul Jain and Mr.Abhishek
Kumar, Adv. for R-1, 2 & 4 with R-4
in person.
Ms. Purnima Maheshwari, Adv. for
D-3.
W.P.(C) 5013/2014
SHRI DINESH SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Adv.
versus
RAMJAS SCHOOL & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Sr. Adv. with
Mr.Atul Jain and Mr.Abhishek
Kumar, Adv. for R-1, 2 & 4 with R-4
in person.
Ms. Purnima Maheshwari, Adv. for D-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
W.P.(C) 3795/2014
1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner seeks the relief of setting aside of the impugned order
dated 07.05.2014 passed by the respondents No.1 & 2/Ramjas School
whereby the respondent No.4 has been appointed as an Officiating Principal
(H.O.S.) of the School, and not the petitioner.
2. I put it to the learned counsel for the petitioner that which is the law or
the valid rule or office order issued by the Directorate of Education under
the relevant provisions of the Delhi School Education Act & Rules, 1973
which states that only a senior most teacher/PGT should be appointed as an
Officiating Principal and nobody else. To this query, no pleading in the writ
petition has been shown before me which pleads that by virtue of which
specific provision of the Act or Rules, or because of a particular notification
issued by the Directorate of Education under the said Act & Rules, the
senior most PGT should be appointed as an Officiating Principal. Thus no
legal cause of action is pleaded in the writ petition and in the absence of the
same the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
3. However, counsel for the petitioner seeks to draw the attention of this
Court to a note taken out in Dixit's School Manual, and which is filed not
with the writ petition but with the rejoinder affidavit, and which note reads
as under:-
Senior-most Teacher should be given Charge of School in the
Absence of the Regular Head of School
Instances have been brought to our notice where, in the absence of the
regular head of school, a junior teacher has been asked to officiate as
the head of the school even when the senior-most person was
available. This practice is highly objectionable and contrary to rules.
The Director of Education has desired that officiating charge of the
school should be given only to the senior-most teacher. Only when
the senior-most teacher is either not eligible or available, should the
next teacher on the seniority list be asked to officiate.
[Dte. Of Edn., School Branch, Vide No.18021-18041, dt. 29.03.1990]"
4. In my opinion, what has been written in a book, and without the
complete relevant circular having been filed before this Court, being the
complete circular dated 29.03.1990, this court cannot decide whether only a
senior most teacher should be made an Officiating Principal, because the
complete language of the circular will have to be looked at for interpreting
the same. It is perfectly possible that the circular dated 29.03.1990 may not
comply to un-aided private schools such as respondents No.1 & 2 or it is
possible that language of the Circular dated 29.03.1990 is not exactly culled
out in the note which is relied before this Court.
5. In view of the above, I do not find that any legal cause of action is
pleaded/exists for the petitioner to claim that she should have been appointed
as the Officiating Principal of the respondents No.1 & 2/Ramjas School
merely on the ground that the petitioner is the senior most PGT.
6. Dismissed.
W.P.(C) 5013/2014
7. The only relief which is pressed so far as this writ petition is
concerned is again of the claim of the petitioner to be appointed as an
Officiating Principal, and which claim of the petitioner cannot be granted, in
view of the observations made while disposing of W.P.(C) 3795/2014.
8. This writ petition is also therefore dismissed.
FEBRUARY 02, 2015 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
sn
