Delhi High Court
Meenakshi Arora vs Managing Committee St. Angels ... on 30 May, 2016
$~5 to 12 and 14 & 15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3331/2016 & CM No.14202/2016,
WP(C)3332/2016 & CM No.14204/2016,
WP(C)3333/2016 & CM No.14206/2016,
WP(C)3515/2016 & CM No.15043/2016,
WP(C)3516/2016 & CM No.15045/2016,
WP(C)3517/2016 & CM No.15050/2016,
WP(C)3520/2016 & CM No.15055/2016,
WP(C)3524/2016 & CM No.15059/2016,
WP(C)3529/2016 & CM No.15084/2016 and
WP(C)3530/2016 & CM No.15086/2016
MEENAKSHI ARORA ..... Petitioner
MAMTA ..... Petitioner
RENU RAINA ..... Petitioner
AVNEET AHLUWALIA ..... Petitioner
NEHA GUPTA ..... Petitioner
POONAM KUMAR ..... Petitioner
SHWETA YADAV ..... Petitioner
SARASWATHY ..... Petitioner
BIDYA JHA ..... Petitioner
RINKU BHAT ..... Petitioner
Through : Ms. Indrani Ghosh with
Ms. Nidhi Jacob, Advocates
versus
MANAGING COMMITTEE ST. ANGELS SCHOOL & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Prakash Gautam with
Mr.Prakash Bhardwaj, Advocates for R-1 to 3.
Mr. Sumit K. Batra with
Ms. N.S. Arora, Advocates for R-4 in
W.P.(C) 3331/2016, WP(C)3332/2016 and
WP(C)3333/2016.
WP(C)No.3331/2016 & connected matters Page 1 of 3
Mr. Saurabh Chadda, Advocate for R-4 in
WP(C)3520/2016, WP(C)3524/2016 &
WP(C)3529/2016.
Ms. Shakshi Popi, Advocate for R-4 in
WP(C)3516/2016 and WP(C)3530/2016.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
ORDER
% 30.05.2016
1. The present batch of matters that have been filed by the petitioners,
who are all employed with the respondent No.1/School as teachers, assail
the orders passed by the Inquiry Officer appointed by the respondent
No.1/School, declining the appointment of Ms. Asha Rani as their Defence
Assistant. Further, directions have been prayed to direct the respondent No.1
to give effect to the Notification dated 25.3.1991, issued by the respondent
No.4/DOE, that permits appointment of a suspended employee as a Defence
Assistant.
2. Counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3 states at the outset that though
he has filed counter affidavits in opposition to the present petitions, but
solely with the object of expediting the inquiry proceedings, he has
instructions to state that his clients do not have any objection to the
appointment of Ms. Asha Rani, a suspended employee of the respondent
No.1/School, as a Defence Assistant in respect of each of the petitioners in
the disciplinary proceedings initiated against them. He explains that the
respondents No.1 to 3 have an apprehension that the petitioners are trying to
delay the inquiry proceedings by insisting on the appointment of the same
person as a Defence Assistant in the separate disciplinary proceedings
initiated against them and that is why they had expressed their reservation
for permitting Ms. Asha Rani to act as a Defence Assistant for each of the
petitioners.
3. The Court is informed that the disciplinary proceedings are at the
stage of recording of evidence of the management. Counsels for the parties
state that a date may be fixed for the petitioners to appear before the Inquiry
Officer so that the inquiry proceedings can continue further.
4. In view of the aforesaid submission, the present petitions are disposed
of with permission granted to the petitioners to be represented through
Ms. Asha Rani as their Defence Assistant in the disciplinary proceedings
initiated against each of them.
5. As the Court is informed that as of now, no date has been fixed before
the Inquiry Officer/respondent No.3, it is deemed appropriate to direct the
petitioners to appear before the respondent No.3/Inquiry Officer on
10.6.2016, for him to fix fresh dates in each case for further proceedings.
6. It is made clear that neither of the parties shall seek unnecessary
adjournments and they shall render all necessary cooperation so that the
inquiry proceedings can be concluded at the earliest.
7. The writ petitions are disposed of, along with the pending
applications.
HIMA KOHLI, J
MAY 30, 2016
sk/mk/ap
