Ms. Bhagwan Devi vs Deep Public School & Ors.
2015 Latest Caselaw 2457 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         W.P.(C) No. 2775/2015
%                                                   23rd March, 2015

MS. BHAGWAN DEVI                                    ..... Petitioner
                          Through:       Mr. Vishwendra Verma, Adv.


                          Versus



DEEP PUBLIC SCHOOL & ORS.                                ..... Respondents
                  Through:               Ms. Bandana Shukla Adv. for R-3.

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 filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India, petitioner impugns the judgment of the Delhi School

Tribunal dated 23.9.2014 by which the Delhi School Tribunal has dismissed

the appeal filed by the petitioner both on merits as also on the ground of

limitation.


2.    Petitioner claims/claimed that she had been appointed in the

respondent no.1/School way back in 1997 and therefore she could not have

been terminated without following the rules w.e.f 12.7.2007.
WPC 2775/2015                                                                Page 1 of 3
 3.    The respondent no.1/School in this regard pleaded before the Delhi

School Tribunal that petitioner's case was only a case of compassionate

appointment only on casual basis for different periods inasmuch as petitioner

did not have qualification as required under the Delhi School Education Act

and Rules, 1973 for being appointed and was also over-age when she got her

first appointment on casual basis.


4.    I put it to the counsel for the petitioner to show me the qualification of

the petitioner, and whether a completely uneducated person can be employed

by a school as per the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act and

Rules, 1973, and, in response the counsel for the petitioner could not show

to me any educational qualification of the petitioner.


5.    Also, counsel for the petitioner could not point out any proof of the

age of the petitioner when she was appointed by the respondent no.1/School

and therefore, this Court has no option but to believe the case of the school

that the petitioner was over-age and hence could not have been appointed to

a regular post.     Therefore, petitioner could not have sought regular

employment with the respondent no.1/School not only on account of her

being over-aged, but also because she did not have any qualification

whatsoever.

WPC 2775/2015                                                                Page 2 of 3
 6.    Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal on

merits.


7.    So far as the challenge to the impugned judgment on the ground that

the Tribunal holds that the appeal before the Delhi School Tribunal was

barred by time is concerned, however though I prima facie agree with the

view of the Delhi School Tribunal because simple withdrawal before the

Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, will not automatically extend the period of

limitation for filing of the appeal, and which period is three months from the

date of termination of services of the petitioner, since, however, the

petitioner has no case on merits, the aspect of limitation need not be looked

into by me.


8.    Dismissed.




MARCH 23, 2015                               VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib