Delhi High Court
Shri Kuldeep Singh vs The Management Of St. John ... on 3 February, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 776/2009
% 3rd February, 2017
SHRI KULDEEP SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: None.
versus
THE MANAGEMENT OF ST. JOHN CO-EDUCATION
SECONDARY SCHOOL & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Varun Nischal, Advocate
for DOE.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, petitioner seeks the relief of being regularized as a Trained
Graduate Teacher (TGT) with the respondent no. 1/St. John Co-
education Secondary School.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he had been carrying out
teaching duties with the respondent no. 1/school since 1.8.1997 till
July, 2008. Respondent no. 1 is an aided minority school. Petitioner
pleads that since he has been working for eleven years with the
respondent no.1/school he should be regularized instead of the post
being filled by direct recruitment in terms of the advertisement dated
24.3.2008 issued in Navbharat Times, Hindi Edition.
3. The counter affidavit filed by the respondent no. 1/school
and the Director of Education/respondent no. 2 shows that the
petitioner was not appointed by a regular selection process by a regular
selection committee and thus there was no sanctioned post or sanction
of the Director of Education to fill a post which was working. As per
the counter affidavit of the respondent no.1/school, the petitioner was
known to the then Principal, and therefore, he was appointed purely
temporarily at a consolidated sum of Rs.1,000/- and which amount was
payable from the PTA Fund. This is the admitted case of the petitioner
himself also because the petitioner has filed a certificate dated
25.11.1999 showing that he was appointed on purely temporary basis
with effect from 1.8.1997 and was being paid a consolidated sum of
Rs.1,000/- from the PTA Fund.
4. No doubt, the respondent no. 1/school is an aided minority
school and the Director of Education can only prescribe qualifying
standards for appointment of a teacher and Director of Education
cannot interfere with the selection of a person in the school, however,
firstly, since the petitioner has never been selected through a regular
selection process (and which is even the admitted case of the petitioner
in terms of his certificate dated 25.11.1999 filed as annexure P-1 to the
writ petition), and therefore petitioner had only worked in a temporary
capacity on a fixed salary being payable from the PTA Fund cannot
claim regularization and secondly that petitioner can only claim
regularization on account of having worked with the respondent no.
1/school for a period of eleven years to a post sanctioned by the
Director of Education and which is not so.
5. The issue arises of regularization in an aided school to
which 95% finances are provided by Government is only if there is a
post which is sanctioned by the Directorate of Education. Without
there being a sanctioned post, a person cannot seek permanent
appointment merely because such a person is employed as a teacher in
an aided school. If petitions, like the present, are allowed with respect
to regularization of appointments in aided schools to whom 95% aid is
given from the Government, the same will result in totally illegal
appointments with the consequence that Government will be asked to
spend funds on illegal appointments of employees and teachers in the
school.
6. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition and
the same is, therefore, dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own
costs.
FEBRUARY 03, 2017 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
Ne/AK
