Smt. Shobha & Ors. vs Geeta Senior Secondary School ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 577 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         W.P.(C) No.5852/2008

%                                                    31st January, 2017


SMT. SHOBHA & ORS.                                      ..... Petitioners
                          Through:       Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate.
                          versus

GEETA SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL NO.II AND ORS.
                                         ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathy, Advocate 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)

1. Three petitioners have filed this writ petition impugning

the actions of the respondent no.1/school and the respondent

no.3/Director of Education in not appointing the petitioners as

Assistant Primary Teachers pursuant to the advertisement issued on

18.12.2007.

2. So far as the petitioner no.1 is concerned, the Director of

Education has filed the counter affidavit stating that petitioner no.1

never applied for the post in question. I have put it to the counsel for

the petitioners that what is the proof filed that petitioner no.1 had

applied for being selected under the recruitment process commencing

through the advertisement dated 18.12.2007, and the counsel for

petitioner no.1 in response could not point out any document to this

Court showing that petitioner no.1 had applied for the post in question.

Once that is so that petitioner no.1 did not even apply for being

selected, petitioner no.1 therefore cannot claim that she should have

been appointed to the post of Assistant Primary Teacher.

3. So far as petitioner no.3 is concerned, the Director of

Education in its counter affidavit has stated that petitioner no.3

received only 34 marks and hence was not in the merit list for being

called. Petitioner no.3 has not filed any rejoinder affidavit to the

counter affidavit of the Director of Education, and therefore, the stand

of the Director of Education has necessarily to be accepted that

petitioner no.3 only secured 34 marks, and hence was not in the merit

list. Once the petitioner no.3 was not entitled to be called for the

interview for the post of Assistant Primary Teacher, hence the

petitioner no.3 cannot claim for being appointed as an Assistant

Primary Teacher of the respondent no.1/school.

4(i) So far as petitioner no.2 is concerned, the case of

petitioner no.2 is that the selection process was not transparent, no

marks were allotted under different heads in the interviews, and that

petitioner no.2 was always assured by the management that since she

had worked earlier in the school for a long time, hence, petitioner no.2

would be appointed.

(ii) The arguments urged on behalf of petitioner no.2 are

misconceived because there is no requirement as per the recruitment

rules that the marks which are given in the interview should be under

specific heads. It is also seen that petitioner no.2 has not made any

allegations against any specific member of the Selection Committee.

Once the Selection Committee has met, Selection Committee has

selected candidates as per their understanding of merits of a candidate,

there is no violation of law in not communicating the marks of the

petitioner no.2 to the petitioner no.2 or no specific marks were required

to be given under different heads in the interview, it cannot be argued

by the petitioner no.2 that selection process was illegal. The issue of

transparency urged on behalf of the petitioner no.2 can only be looked

at if there is any illegality in the selection process, and illegality in the

selection process can only take place if there is violation of recruitment

rules or any circular or guideline issued by the Director of Education,

and to this effect no cause of action is laid out in the writ petition on

behalf of petitioner no.2. Hence petitioner no.2 who was considered

but was not selected in the interview process, but other private

respondent were selected, and thus consequently, the petitioner no.2

cannot raise any legal grievance against her non selection to the post of

Assistant Primary Teacher with the respondent no.1/school.

5. In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petition,

and the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their

own costs.

JANUARY 31, 2017                              VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
Ne