Delhi High Court
Govt Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr. vs Philomina Mary And Anr. on 16 October, 2015
Author: Mukta Gupta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Reserved on: October 15, 2015
% Judgment Delivered on: October 16, 2015
+ LPA 565/2012
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. ..... Appellants
Represented by: Mr.Satyakam, Additional
Standing Counsel for GNCTD.
versus
PHILOMINA MARY AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.G.D.Gupta, Sr.Advocate
instructed by Ms.Chhaya
Sharma, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
1. The instant appeal arises from the judgment dated July 03, 2012
passed by the learned Single Judge in a writ petition being W.P.(C)
No.567/1997 filed by Ms.Philomina Mary against the management of
St.John Co-Educational School (in short the School), Khera Khurd, Delhi
and Others seeking regularization of service and back wages with effect
from December 18, 1991.
2. Briefly the facts being Ms.Philomina Mary joined Lourd's Convent
Girls inter college at Ghaziabad as an Assistant Teacher from July 01, 1968
to May 17, 1973 and in the year 1981 she joined the School as named above
as Assistant Teacher and continued to work there. On December 18, 1991
Ms.Philomina Mary was issued a letter by the School regularising her
services to the post of Assistant Teacher with effect from December 18,
1991 as the post had fallen vacant due to Shri Marcel Kujur, Assistant
Teacher being promoted as Head Master, Primary Department. The letter
dated December 18, 1991 also provided that the payment of salary would be
strictly subject to receipt of grant-in-aid from the Education Department and
in case no grant-in-aid was obtained she will have no claim to the salary. In
response to the letter dated November 26, 1992 sent by the Education
Officer, Directorate of Education, the School informed that Ms.Philomina
Mary was working in the School for the last 15 years against leave vacancy
of different teachers and she has been appointed against a vacant post
created on promotion. It was also noted that Ms.Mary was called for
interview but the Selection Committee found her not qualified as she had no
Science and Maths subjects in her matric examination but the recruitment
rules of the Directorate of a later date gave relaxation to the recommendation
of the Selection Committee if the candidate had passed Higher Secondary
Examination. In the meantime Ms.Mary has done her Higher
Secondary/intermediate exam and thus she stands qualified.
3. It is the case of the appellant/ Govt. of NCT that the Selection
Committee in its meeting held on November 17, 1989 did not select
Ms.Mary rather selected Ms.Virginia John, Ms.Sushila Harris and Mrs.Mary
Kutty for the post of Assistant Teachers being fully qualified and Ms.Rita
Samuel and Anupam Sharma were kept in the wait list. However, on the
recommendation of the Principal of the School Ms.Philomina Mary who was
working against leave vacancy since 1985 and her work and conduct was
found to be satisfactory was allowed to be regularized as Assistant Teacher
in the vacant post with a request to the Director of Education to grant
necessary relaxation in her age and qualification in the meeting of the
Management Committee held by circulation on December 18, 1991.
Referring to the recruitment rules it is stated that the necessary qualification
for an Assistant Teacher was Higher Secondary with Science and Maths
which Ms.Mary did not possess and thus no orders of regularisation could be
passed. It is contended that the learned Single Judge without taking into
these aspects directed regularization of the service of Ms.Mary with effect
from December 18, 1991 contrary to the law and hence the impugned order
be set aside.
4. Both the parties do not dispute that Ms.Philomina Mary continued to
work as Assistant Teacher till she attained the age of superannuation and as
per Ms.Mary she was getting only `1000/- per month. Though she was
within the age limit at the time of initial entry, however she became over-age
when the order of regularization was passed in her favour by the
management of the School.
5. The learned Single Judge for the reason that the School was in a far
flung rural area of Delhi and was looking after orphans and poor children
where hardly any teacher would be willing to serve and since the School had
no objection to regularization, directed regularization of Ms.Mary as a one-
time measure.
6. It is well-settled that the Selection Committee can relax the rules only
if it does not have candidates with requisite qualifications. In the present
case three Assistant Teachers were selected and a wait list panel of two was
prepared, all with requisite qualifications. In such a situation the
justification awarded that since the School was in a far flung rural area and
no teachers were available does not stand to reason. The Directorate of
Education at no point of time despite repeated recommendations of the
School approved the case of Ms.Mary for regularization and in the absence
of her appointment being not through a regular process of selection as per
the recruitment rules, no directions for regularization can be passed.
Consequently, the impugned order is set aside.
7. The appeal is disposed of.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 16, 2015
'ga'
