Delhi High Court
Shobha & Ors. vs Geeta Senior Secondary School No. ... on 11 August, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Review Petition No. 316/2017 in W.P.(C) 5852/2008
% 11th August, 2017
SHOBHA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Devender Singh, Advocate
with Mr. Anant K. Vatsya,
Advocate.
versus
GEETA SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL NO. II & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi,
ASC with Mr. Rizwan,
Advocate for respondent No.3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
C.M. No.28732/2017 (for condonation of delay)
1. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 154
days in filing the review petition is condoned.
C.M. stands disposed of.
Review Petition No.316/2017 and C.M. No.28733/2017 (for
bringing on record additional documents)
2. By this review petition, the petitioner no.1 seeks review
of the judgment of this Court dated 31.1.2017 which has dismissed the
writ petition filed by the petitioner no.1/review petitioner by which the
petitioner no.1 had sought her appointment as an Assistant Primary
Teacher with the respondent no.1/school pursuant to the advertisement
issued on 18.12.2007. Writ petition was dismissed so far as petitioner
no.1 is concerned by noting the stand of the respondent no.3/Director
of Education in its counter affidavit that petitioner no.1 had not even
applied for the appointment pursuant to the advertisement issued on
18.12.2007.
3. This review petition is predicated on the ground that
petitioner no.1 in fact had applied for the post in question and the
application along with endorsement of the receipt is the one which is
stated to be filed now with this review petition. This Court is asked to
entertain this review petition on the basis that the petitioner no.1 had
applied for appointment in terms of the documents now filed with the
review petition.
4. I cannot agree with the ground urged by the petitioner
no.1 that petitioner no.1 had applied for the post of Assistant Primary
Teacher pursuant to the advertisement dated 18.12.2007. The writ
petition was filed in the year 2008. In the counter affidavit which was
filed in the year 2009 by the respondent no.3/Director of Education,
inasmuch as the respondent no.1/school which is an aided school, it
was categorically stated at two places in internal page two of the
counter affidavit that petitioner no.1 had never applied for the post in
question and hence she was not called for the interview. To this
counter affidavit of the respondent no.3/Director of Education filed in
May 2009, there was no rejoinder affidavit filed till the writ petition
was dismissed by the judgment dated 31.1.2017 i.e the judgment is
passed around seven years after filing of the counter affidavit by the
respondent no.3/Director of Education stating that the petitioner no.1
had not applied for the post in question. If the petitioner no.1 in fact
had applied for the post in question and she had the documents, which
are now sought to be relied upon with the review petition, then surely
a period of seven years was a long time for the petitioner no.1 to file
her rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit of the respondent
no.3/Director of Education and attaching therewith the documents to
plead that the petitioner no.1 had in fact applied for the post in
question.
5. I therefore cannot believe the petitioner no.1 and this
Court doubts the very authenticity of these private documents which
are now been relied upon after seven years of filing of the counter
affidavit in the writ petition and after the writ petition itself has been
dismissed by a detailed judgment on 31.1.2017.
6. Petitioner no.1 has made allegations against her earlier
Advocate but in my opinion this Court would not like to believe this
self-serving averment that it is the Advocate who deliberately did not
file the rejoinder affidavit accompanied by the documents showing
petitioner no. 1 had applied for the post in question.
7. Dismissed.
AUGUST 11, 2017 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
Ne
