Delhi High Court
Neelam Gupta vs Somerville School & Anr. on 3 February, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 8463/2008
% 3rd February,2017
NEELAM GUPTA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajeev Saxena and Ms. Namrata
Chauhan, Advocate.
versus
SOMERVILLE SCHOOL & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Varun Nischal, Advocate for R-
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 and Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, petitioner impugns the order of the Delhi School
Tribunal dated 6.5.2008, by which the Delhi School Tribunal has refused to
set aside the termination order dated 30.9.2004 issued by the respondent
no.1/school terminating the services of the petitioner as a Librarian on the
ground that petitioner did not have the requisite educational qualification of
graduation in Library Science.
2. The admitted facts are that the petitioner served with the
respondent no.1/school for around 22 years before her termination order.
The preceding facts prior to the termination order are that the respondent
no.2/Director of Education (DOE) had conducted an inspection of the
respondent no.1/school on 15.12.1999 and raised objection with respect to
lack of qualification of the petitioner in not having the necessary Bachelor
degree in Library Science inasmuch as the petitioner had pursued only a
certificate course in Library Science conducted by the Delhi Library
Association and not a University. Petitioner was accordingly given time of
two years by the Managing Committee of the respondent no.1/school vide
its Meeting dated 10.4.2000 to get the necessary qualification and which
period was further extended in the Meeting dated 31.5.2004 of the
Managing Committee of the respondent no.1/school by giving six months
more time to the petitioner till 31.12.2004. Petitioner, however would get
the degree in Library Science for about 2 months and 8 days after
31.12.2004, because though she appeared in the B.Lib. examination in the
month of December 2004, but she was declared as passed only later on
8.3.2005. Be it noted that examination was given by the petitioner for
passing the course of B.Lib. within the six months extended period which
expired on 31.12.2004.
3. The only issue in this case is that whether the respondent
no.1/school before expiry of six months granted till 31.12.2004 could have
terminated the services of the petitioner earlier by its impugned termination
letter dated 30.9.2004 and that too although petitioner had given the
examination by 31.12.2004. In my opinion, the writ petition can be allowed
for two reasons. Firstly, if petitioner has been granted time till 31.12.2004
to acquire necessary qualification because she had otherwise worked with
the respondent no.1/school, a minority unaided school for 22 years, then
there was no reason why extension should not be granted beyond
31.12.2004 for a period of just 2 months and 8 days i.e up to 8.3.2005 when
petitioner's result was declared and she was successful in getting the degree
of B.Lib. The second reason is that a candidate can at best give examination
but when the results are declared is not in the hand of the candidate.
Petitioner gave her examination for B.Lib. prior to the expiry of six months
on 31.12.2004. It is only that the results were declared thereafter and
petitioner was declared to be passed on 8.3.2005. In a way therefore in the
facts of the case petitioner's result will have to be related back to the date of
giving examination in December, 2004 and petitioner therefore in the
peculiar facts of this case can be said to have completed her qualification of
B.Lib. before 31.12.1994. In any case, if there is any doubt whatsoever,
since period of getting qualifications can be extended, this Court grants
deemed extension to the petitioner till 8.3.2005 when the petitioner acquired
her degree in B.Lib.
4. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed and the
impugned order of the Delhi School Tribunal dated 6.5.2008 is set aside.
The order of the termination of the petitioner from the respondent
no.1/school dated 30.9.2004 is also set aside. What would be the monetary
emoluments payable to the petitioner for the period which petitioner has not
worked with the respondent no.1/school will be decided by the respondent
no.1/school in terms of Rule 121 of the Delhi School Education Rules,
1973, and for which purpose petitioner will make the necessary
representation to the respondent no.1/school.
5. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid
observations.
February 03, 2017 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
ib
