Delhi High Court
Balraj Parashar vs Union Academy Sr. Sec. School And ... on 4 December, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: December 04, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 2272/2012
BALRAJ PARASHAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.N. Dudeja and Mr. Anuj
Chauhan, Advocates
versus
UNION ACADEMY SR. SEC. SCHOOL AND ORS
....Respondents
Through: Ms. Urmila Kar Purkayastha,
Advocate for Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee,
Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2
Mr. Shadan Farasat and Mr. Ahmed Said,
Advocates for respondents No.3 & 4
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
1. In the first round of litigation, respondent-Directorate of Education
was directed to decide petitioner's Representation of 10 th November,
2008, which has been now decided vide impugned order of 11 th February,
2011 (Annexure P-13).
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the Selection
Committee of respondent-School had recommended petitioner for
appointment on the post of Librarian, subject to grant of age relaxation in
terms of D.O. letter of 29th October, 1975. Respondent-Directorate of
Education vide letter of 23rd October, 2008 has refused to grant approval
to petitioner's appointment as Librarian while observing that petitioner
cannot be granted age relaxation as aforesaid Circular of 1976 relates to
grant of age relaxation to Teacher whereas petitioner is being appointed
as Librarian and has to be treated as Non-Teaching Staff.
3. To assail impugned order of 11th February, 2011 (Annexure P-13),
learned counsel for petitioner draws attention of this Court to Circular of
20th January, 2009 (Annexure P-14) to point out that Librarians are
equated with Teachers and so, age relaxation ought to have been granted
by respondent-Directorate of Education. Learned counsel for petitioner
relies upon Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 98 of the Delhi School Education Rules,
1973 to submit that if the approval to the selection made is not granted
within 15 days, then there shall be deemed approval. It is pointed out that
the Selection Committee consisted of a nominee of Directorate of
Education as well and the disapproval was not conveyed to respondent-
School within 15 days and so, there was deemed approval. Thus, it is
submitted on behalf of petitioner that since the disapproval was not
conveyed within the mandatory period of 15 days, therefore, the Selection
Committee's recommendation ought to be given effect to and petitioner
deserves to be appointed as Librarian. Reliance is placed by petitioner's
counsel upon a decision of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Smt.
Promila Dixit v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 178 (2011) DLT 377.
4. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondents No.3 & 4 submits
that in the Office Order of 21st January, 2011 (Annexure P-18), it has
been clarified for the first time that Librarian shall also take classes
besides the work of Librarian and so, they have been equated with the
Teachers, but the Office Order of 21st January, 2011 (Annexure P-18)
cannot be given retrospective effect as recommendation to appoint
petitioner is of the year 2008. It is also submitted on behalf of
respondents-DOE that the applicable Rule is not Rule 98 but Rule 97.
Infact, Rule 97 of the aforesaid Rules of 1973, makes it clear that the
relaxation in age has to be with the approval of Directorate of Education
and no time limit is prescribed in Rule 97 and so, there cannot be any
deemed approval.
5. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order, material on record
and the decision cited, I find that Circular of 3th May, 1976 relied upon by
petitioner pertains to grant of age relaxation limit for recruitment to
various categories of Teachers and respondent-Directorate of Education
has rightly not granted the benefit of this Circular to petitioner, who was
recommended for appointment as a Librarian i.e. Non-Teaching Staff. It
is only in the year 2011 vide Office Order of 21st January, 2011
(Annexure P-18) that Librarians have been called upon, for the first time,
to take classes besides the work of Librarian and so, they can be equated
with Teachers, but this Office Order of 21st January, 2011 (Annexure P-
18) cannot be applied retrospectively.
6. So far as the question of deemed approval is concerned, I find that
the instant case was not of a routine recommendation by Selection
Committee/DPC, but was a recommendation which was subject to grant
of relaxation in age. So, the case of petitioner was required to be
considered under Rule 97 and not Rule 98 of the Delhi School Education
Rules, 1973. Thus, petitioner's plea of deemed approval cannot be
accepted on the face of it.
7. So far as Circular of 20th January, 2009 (Annexure P-14) is
concerned, I find that this Circular gives clarification in respect of pay-
scales in which not only Teachers but Librarians are also included.
However, this Circular would not justify grant of age relaxation, which is
an essential qualification/condition. Reliance placed by petitioner's
counsel upon decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
Smt.Promila Dixit (supra) is of no avail as in the said decision, the legal
proposition that a Librarian cannot be equated with a Teacher in matter of
relaxation has been accepted, but since the service of Teachers in the said
case was utilized by the School for one and half years, so the Teacher in
the said case was allowed to join back in the School with clarification that
this decision will carry no precedential value. Pertinently, the instant case
if of appointment and not of joining back.
8. In view of aforesaid, impugned order cannot be faulted with and
hence, this petition is dismissed while leaving the parties to bear their
own costs.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 04, 2017
s
