Delhi High Court
Smt. Arun Lata vs Dy. Director Of Education & Ors. on 6 February, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.9154/2009
% 6th February, 2017
SMT. ARUN LATA ..... Petitioner
Through: None.
versus
DY. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, ASC, GNCTD
with Ms. Deboshree Mukherjee, Adv.
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,
the petitioner seeks the relief of continuation as a teacher in the Dayanand
Model School, represented by respondent nos.2 to 4. Petitioner pleads that
she was appointed in terms of an advertisement dated 25.7.2007 and her
services were arbitrarily terminated w.e.f 1.4.2009. The case of the
petitioner is that she was appointed as a TGT in Dayanand Model School
since August, 2007 pursuant to walk-in-interview conducted as per the
advertisement issued in Times of India dated 25.7.2007. Petitioner pleads
that she was paid consolidated salary of Rs.7,000/- per month and her
provident fund was also deducted from her salary. Petitioner pleads that she
was never told that her appointment was on the contractual basis and
suddenly the petitioner from March, 2009 was told that her services stands
terminated. Petitioner pleads that she made representations to the school on
19.3.2009 and which was followed up by another representations dated
6.4.2009 and 8.4.2009 but the same has had no effect as it was informed to
her by the school that the petitioner's services were on temporary basis as
conveyed to the petitioner at the time of interview and that petitioner's
services would be no longer required after 31.3.2009.
2. In the counter affidavit filed by the school, it is stated that the
petitioner's employment was contractual and since the petitioner's
employment was purely temporary and ad hoc, and hence the petitioner's
services were ultimately terminated w.e.f 31.3.2009.
3. No doubt, the advertisement relied upon by the petitioner does
not show that appointment was to a temporary post, however, it is seen that
petitioner has not filed the letter of appointment issued to her that petitioner
was appointed on permanent basis or probationary basis or contractual basis.
Once the petitioner is not appointed on permanent basis then petitioner
could only have been appointed on contractual basis or probationary basis.
A probationary teacher or a contractual teacher can seek regularization only
after three years of service in view of the ratios of the judgments passed by
this Court in the cases of Hamdard Public School Vs. Directorate of
Education and Anr. 202 (2013) DLT 111 and three connected cases with
the lead case being Army Public School and Anr. Vs. Narendra Singh
Nain and Anr. in W.P.(C) No.1439/2013 decided on 30.8.2013. The
judgment in Army Public School's case (supra) was upheld by a Division
Bench in LPA being 223/2015 as per its judgment titled as Army Welfare
Education Society & Anr. Vs. Manju Nautiyal & Anr.
4. In view of the above, since petitioner has not completed a
period of three years service with the school, petitioner cannot get benefit of
regularization in terms of the ratios of the judgment in the cases of
Hamdard Public School (supra) and Army Public School (supra), and
therefore this writ petition is dismissed as petitioner has been treated as an
ad hoc or temporary or contractual teacher in terms of Rule 105(3) of the
Delhi School Education Rules, 1973.
5. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed, leaving the
parties to bear their own costs.
FEBRUARY 06, 2017 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
ib
