Delhi High Court
Bharat Singh vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. on 1 September, 2016
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7155/2016
BHARAT SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. T.D. Yadav, Adv.
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Gautam Narayan, ASC with Mr.
Shatrajit Banerji, Adv. for R-1 to 3 with Ms.
Meena Goswami, Dy. Education Officer.
Mr. Shankar Raju and Mr. Nilansh Gaur, Advs. for
R- 4 to 6.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
ORDER
% 01.09.2016
1. The petitioner superannuated from service as a PGT (Natural Science)
on 31.01.2016. The petitioner seeks re-employment upto the age of 62 years
from the very next day under the Government's Notification dated
31.12.2007 read with Office Order dated 15.02.2008 on the ground that the
re-employment is automatic and there has been no case or complaint against
the petitioner during entire tenure of his service with the respondent school.
2. In an earlier petition filed by the petitioner being WP(C) No.
2063/2016, vide order dated 26.04.2016 this Court had directed the
respondent school to dispose off the petitioner's representation for re-
employment. The respondent school has passed the impugned speaking
order dated 30.05.2016, which inter alia observed that:
"..... 4) That the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in LPA
414/2011 vide judgment dated 28.3.2012 in the case of
Shashi Kohli Vs. Directorate of Education held that re-
employment of a retired teacher is not automatic but, a
concession conferred upon the teachers. The School cannot
be compelled to retain the teachers who were not found best
in the field. According to the Hon'ble High Court, the
notification for re-employment ought to be read as an
incentive but cannot be conferred a right to a teacher. The
benefit of notification is intended for those who have the
potential for continued useful service to the institution.
According to the Hoh'ble High Court, non-grant Of re-
employment does not cast any stigma and the notification is
not intended to force upon the school to re-employ teachers
who are worthless. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble
High Court and having considered the previous record of Sh.
Bharat Singh, the Committee was of the view that Sh.Bharat
Singh during his tenure as a Teacher with the School does not
enjoy the status of an excellent Teacher. His attitude towards
students, fellow workers was not congenial. The management
was benevolent in not certifying him not to be an excellent
academic performer so that, at the verge of his retirement, his
benefits are not curtailed. The record of Sh.Bharat Singh
available with the School does not reflect that Sh.Bharat
Singh has potential for continued useful service to the
Institution. His continuance would affect the standards of
teaching. Accordingly, a more competent fresh blood
required to be inducted into the Institution.
After consideration the contentions raised by Sh.
Bharat Singh during his personal hearing and his request for
re-consideration, the Management Committee was of the
view that Sh. Bharat Singh is not found fit for being Offered
re-employment. Accordingly, his earlier representations and
the request for reconsideration stands rejected. Copy of this
order be communicated to Sh. Bharat Singh through Speed
Post. This Speaking Order complies with the order dated
26.4.2016 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in
WP(C) 2063/2016....."
3. The Court is of the view that the notification dated 31.12.2007
allowing the automatic re-employment of all retiring teachers in
Government Aided schools upto PGT level was further clarified by Office
Order dated 15.02.2008 which made it conditional upon the Managing
Committee for re-employment indicating that the Management' willingness
to meet the respective additional proportionate expenditure on the salary of
the teachers concerned. The Office Order further provided that the
professional fitness would be assessed by the Deputy Director Education of
the district concerned, in addition to the requirement of physical fitness and
vigilance clearance. Quite clearly, the automatic re-employment would still
be conditional upon an application being made, subject to aforesaid
conditions.
4. The notification has not extended the age of superannuation to 62
years. An applicant only has the right to be considered for re-employment,
and the extension is not automatic irrespective of the aforesaid required
clearances.
5. Insofar the respondent school has considered the application for re-
employment and hence for reasons stated above, found that the petitioner is
not professionally fit to be re-employed. The learned counsel for the
petitioner states that the petitioner's record was not considered by the
school. The petitioner has annexed the results of classes VI to X in the
respondent school of the past 14 years i.e. from 2002 to 2016. On the basis
of the said results, he seeks to contend that the pass percentage of each class
was processed and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be penalized on the
ground of non-performance.
6. On a query being put to the learned counsel for the petitioner, whether
the results pertained to the entire class for all subjects or pertained only to
the subject being taught by the petitioner i.e. Natural Science, he is unable to
give any answer in this regard. From a bare perusal of the said compilation
of results (Annexure P-13), it is clear that they pertained to the entire class
results pertaining to different subjects. The annual results pertained to total
number of students who appeared in each class and were passed i.e. it
pertains to children who were promoted from one class to the other. It does
not reflect the pass percentage or the results of the class pertaining
specifically to the subject taught by the petitioner. Hence the petitioner
cannot derive any benefit from the said document.
7. By the impugned order, the respondent school has not found the
petitioner fit for re-employment. The respondent school has noted that the
petitioner did not enjoy the status of an excellent teacher and his attitude
towards students and fellow workers was not congenial. The impugned
order states that the respondent was benevolent in certifying the petitioner to
be an excellent academic performer because he was on the verge of his
retirement and his post retirement benefits could have been affected by any
adverse observations. Upon review of his career/ past record, the respondent
did not find the petitioner to be a person who holds the potential to continue
service in the institution. Additionally, the respondent noted that the
petitioner's continuing to work as a teacher in the school the school would
adversely affect the standard of teaching. Therefore, the respondent found it
prudent to intake fresh talent for imparting education in the school.
8. The aforesaid reasons are self-explanatory and sufficient. The Court
finds no reason to interfere with the same. The petition is without merit and
is, accordingly, dismissed.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
SEPTEMBER 01, 2016/kk
