Delhi High Court
Ansar Ahmed Jafri vs Directorate Of Education & Ors. on 28 March, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.508/2017 & CM No. 2322/2017
% 28th March, 2017
ANSAR AHMED JAFRI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Javed Ahmad and Mr. Anis
Ahmad, Advocates.
versus
DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Varun Nischal, Adv. for R-
1,2 and 5.
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, who is a teacher in the respondent no.4/Fatehpuri
Muslim Sr. Secondary School, seeks three reliefs. The first relief is for
constitution of a DPC for appointment of the petitioner to the post of
Principal. The second relief claimed is for consideration of the
petitioner to be appointed on the post of Principal w.e.f 19.8.2016 and
the third relief claimed for is for quashing of the Resolution dated
3.9.2016 appointing one Mr. Faiyaz Mir Khan as the Head of the
School (HOS) up to 20.7.2017.
2. The impugned resolution of the respondent no.4/school
dated 3.9.2016 reads as under:-
"Ref No. Date:
Copy of resolution No.3 passed by the Managing Committee Fatehpuri
Muslim senior Secondary School, Delhi in its 23rd meeting held on 3.9.2016.
The order regarding the charge of Principalship from Mr. Mohd. Farhat Aziz
(Ex. Principal) retired on 18.8.2016 (after completion of two years period of
his re-employment) to Mr. Faiyaz Mir Khan Vice Principal (On re
employment) vide Manager's letter dated 19.8.2016 was presented.
Resolved that Mr. Faiyaz Mir Khan (Presently Vice Principal) should be
asked to continue as HOS (Vice Principal) upto the completion of period of
his re employment i.e 20.7.2017.
His signature be spent to the department of Education as well as to various
Banks for operation of accounts of the school.
Sd/- Sd/-
Manager Secretary Chairman"
3. On behalf of the petitioner, reliance is placed upon
circulars issued by the Director of Education dated 24.8.1978 and
29.3.1990 to argue that it is only the senior most teacher who should be
asked to take over the charge of HOS and that if the HOS is appointed
then such a HOS cannot be appointed for a period exceeding 90 days.
4. Firstly, I would like to observe that there is an unhealthy
practice among litigants and lawyers to rely upon circulars by filing
what is stated of that circular in some private publication. This Court
has found on many occasions that the circulars which are stated in
private publications are in fact either truncated versions and thus do not
give a full picture or in fact in certain cases the circulars do not say
what is reproduced of government circulars in the private publication
but in fact in some cases otherwise is stated. Therefore, I need not
legally place reliance upon truncated versions of circulars in private
publications, but be that as it may even if the circulars which are relied
upon by the petitioner are seen, the same do not apply for giving reliefs
to the petitioners.
5. Admittedly, the respondent no.4/school is a minority
school. The issue as regards the control of a minority school by the
Director of Education including by issuing circulars has been a subject
matter of a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the Queen
Mary's School Thru its Principal Vs. UOI 185 (2011) DLT 168. In
this judgment the Division Bench of this Court has held that so far as
minority schools are concerned, such minority schools are entitled to
appoint teachers, Vice-Principals and Principals etc etc once such
persons meet the eligibility criteria for appointment as stated by the
Director of Education. It has been observed in Queen Mary's school
case (supra) that Director of Education cannot interfere in any manner
with the appointments which are made as per eligibility criteria in a
minority school, and also that the nominees of the Director of
Education in the selection committee/DPC are superfluous because
none of such nominees of the Director of Education can change the
decision which is otherwise taken by the minority school for
appointment of a person, who is otherwise qualified in terms of the
directions issued by the Director of Education.
6. Counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon para 16 of
the Queen's Marry case (supra) to argue that circulars issued by
Director of Education are binding upon the respondent no.4/school,
and this para 16 reads as under:-
"16. In view of the above discussions, we hold and declare that Rules 47,
64(1)(b),(e) and 96 of the Delhi School Education Rules, are inapplicable to
aided minority schools. Rule 64(1)(g) is held inapplicable to the extent that
it mandates such schools to fill the posts "without any discrimination or
delay as per the Recruitment Rules prescribed for such posts"; it is clarified
that the managements of such aided minority schools shall adhere to the
Recruitment Rules, and other general norms, to the extent they prescribe
qualifications, experience, age, and other such criteria, for appointment (as
they regulatory)."
7. In fact a reading of para 16 reproduced above goes against
the petitioner because this para notes that only directions with respect
to eligibility criteria for appointment as issued by the Director of
Education are binding and not any other circulars. Therefore para 16 of
the Queen's Marry case (supra) does not help the petitioner.
8. I may note that in the writ petition there are no averments
with respect of Mr. Faiyaz Mir Khan not meeting the eligibility criteria
for being appointed as HOS of respondent no. 4/school. In fact, Mr.
Faiyaz Mir Khan has not been made a party/respondent to this writ
petition although rights of Mr. Faiyaz Mir Khan would be prejudicially
affected by decision in the present case if the petition would have
succeeded and thereby Mr. Faiyaz Mir Khan would not be allowed to
hold the post of HOS of the respondent no.4/school. Therefore, for this
additional reason of non-joinder of necessary party, the writ petition is
liable to be dismissed.
9. In view of the above, petitioner cannot challenge the
resolution dated 3.9.2016 of the respondent no.4/school appointing Mr.
Faiyaz Mir Khan as Head of respondent no.4/school till 20.7.2017.
Once that is so, petitioner cannot be allowed the relief of holding of
DPC for appointing him as Principal/HOS.
10. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is
misconceived, and is accordingly dismissed.
MARCH 28, 2017/ib VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
