Delhi High Court
Sh. Rajpal Singh vs The Chief Secretary Govt. Of Nct Of ... on 18 May, 2016
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgement delivered on: 18.05.2016
+ W.P.(C) 4078/2016
SH. RAJPAL SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Kartar Singh, Adv.
versus
THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND.
ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has impugned the order of the Central
Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal), Principal Bench, New Delhi
pronounced on 21.01.2016 in O.A. No. 846 of 2015 rejecting the
petitioner's challenge to the order dated 30th April, 2014 whereby his
re-employment was not extended for the second year. He has also
sought payment of wages for the period 6th August, 2013 to 19th June,
2014 and for 1st July, 2012 to 5th August, 2012.
2. On 30.06.2012, the petitioner superannuated as a Principal of a
Government school. Upon his application, he was re-employed with
effect from 06.08.2012 to 06.08.2013, i.e., for one year and
extendable by another year based on his performance and subject to
fitness and vigilance clearance till he attains 62 years of age,
W.P.(C) 4078/2016 Page 1 of 5
whichever is earlier. The financial benefits were to accrue from the
date of assignment of charge.
3. It is the petitioner's case that he ought to have been employed
automatically from the very next date after his superannuation, i.e.,
from 01.07.2012, but there was a delay in consideration of the
application which led to his re-employment from 6th August, 2012,
hence he ought to have been paid salary for the intervening period.
4. The petitioner had earlier filed an application being O.A. No.
3119 of 2013 questioning the offer of appointment and seeking
direction and payment of salary with effect from 01.07.2012 to
05.08.2012. Referring to the government's order No.
F.32(8)/2011/SB/Edn/136-155, dated 27.01.2012, the Tribunal held
that determination of fitness of the employees would be governed by
the said order insofar as there was a gap between the date of the
retirement and the date of the re-employment. This order was not
challenged. The petitioner's contention that his case was similar to
the case of Mithilesh Swami [WP(C) 2677/2002] too was rejected as
the Tribunal found that there was difference in facts because
Mithilesh Swami had superannuated on 30.04.2011 much before the
order dated 27.01.2012 came into operation. The subsequent order
had made it clear that the re-employment would be for one year at a
time and the extension would be granted only on assessment of
performance for the previous year subject to fitness and vigilance
clearance etc.
5. The petitioner's performance for the first year of his re-
employment was assessed by the government. Through a detailed
W.P.(C) 4078/2016 Page 2 of 5
order he was found to have not shown professional fitness during his
re-employment period as he worked in a casual manner and therefore
his offer for second year of re-employment was rejected being against
the interest of the children.
6. His performance being not up to the mark, the Tribunal referred
to the order of this Court in Shashi Kohli vs. Director of Education,
WP(C) No. 4330 of 2010, decided on 29.04.2011 which held that the
Court should not interfere when re-employment of a candidate is
rejected on account of his professional un-suitability.
7. We see no reason to interfere with the aforesaid order.
However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that others
similarly placed have been re-employed. Therefore, the petitioner too
should be re-employed and ought to have been given an extension for
the next year, i.e., for the second year also. The re-employment of
other persons who are similarly placed is not an issue to be
determined. Each case of re-employment or extension of re-
employment has to be assessed in its own peculiar set of facts,
circumstances and merits. If the employer, i.e. the Government, is
dissatisfied with the performance or suitability apropos the
professional fitness of the re-employed candidate, the employer
would be well within its rights to reject further re-employment or
extension of tenure of re-employment.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that there
has been no fall in the results of Class 10 or Class 12 examinations
held during the period of re-employment of the petitioner. Therefore,
the order dated 30.04.2014 is mala fide and ought to be set aside.
W.P.(C) 4078/2016 Page 3 of 5
9. We have gone through the order of the Regional Director of
Education (North), Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi
which records:
"And whereas the competent authority which
rejected the re-employment case of Sh. Raj Pal Singh
for second year for his professional unsuitability due to
sharp fall of result to 36% of 12th class in a single year,
has not allowed any other candidate for re-
employment.
And whereas, it may be made clear that
Principal of the school automatically becomes the
Head of the School for the purposes of doing
academic/administrative and financial duties and
whenever there is no Principal in the school, Vice-
principal is declared Head of Office for carrying out
the financial functions only, but as far as academic
functions are concerned it is the duty of the Principal
to engage himself in the teaching/learning processes of
the students. Delegation of financial powers as Head
of Office is primarily to attend the financial
functions/duties so that Principal can devote more time
towards academic work of the school.
The Principal of the school writes the ACRs of
the Post Graduate Teachers and they function directly
under Principal's control. Since these PGTs teach 11
& 12th classes in the school and the result of the 12 th
class fell by 36% in a single year, it reflects the
inability of the Principal to supervise, guide and
control the working of the teaching staff. It also shows
that the Principal was not able to supervise the
classroom teaching and arrange for remedial classes
for weak students to ensure that the result of the school
does not go down."
10. A table (Annexure - A-7) in the pleadings shows academic
result of Classes 10 & 12 for the years 2008 to 2012. The same is
reproduced hereunder:
W.P.(C) 4078/2016 Page 4 of 5
Session Class X Class XII
2008-2009 98.4% 83.3%
2009-2010 98.4% 91.6%
2010-2011 100% 95.5%
2011-2012 96.6% 88.16%
The above table is deceptive. The table does not disclose and
relate to the annual result for the Session 2012-13. The documents
placed on record show that for the session 2012-13, there was a steep
decline in pass percentage with only 63% students clearing/passing
class XII. The petitioner as the Principal had blamed the Vice
Principal. He has not disputed the figure.
Thus the evident sharp fall in academic performance was the
reason for the government for not extending the period of re-
employment for the second year. This was based on material and data.
11. We see no anomaly in the decision making process of the
government. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the order
of the Tribunal. The petition is without merit and is accordingly
dismissed.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
MAY 13, 2016/acm
