Delhi High Court
Dharambir Singh vs Directorate Of Education And Ors. on 30 November, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: November 30, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 10323/2017 & CM 42102/2017
DHARAMBIR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. K.C. Mittal, Mr. Yugansh
Mittal, Mr. Amit Prakash Shahi and Ms.
Ruchika Mittal, Advocates
versus
DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ramesh Singh, Standing
Counsel and Mr. Sandeepam Pathak, Advocate
for respondent No.1-DOE
Mr. N.K. Jha, Advocate with Mr. K.G.
Goswami, Manager for respondent-School
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. Petitioner has retired from respondent-School on 30th September,
2017 and had sought automatic re-employment for two years in terms of
order of 27th January, 2012 (Annexure A-4). According to petitioner, his
case for re-employment was recommended to respondent-Directorate of
Education on 31st August, 2017 (Annexure P-3 colly) and the clear
vacancy position was also intimated by respondent-School alongwith
petitioner's Integrity Certificate, Work and Conduct Certificate, etc..
Respondent-School had also issued Vigilance Clearance Certificate on
31st August, 2017. However, respondent-Directorate of Education vide
impugned order of 30th October, 2017 (Annexure A-1) has rejected
respondent-Schools' recommendation for petitioner's re-employment,
which is under challenge in this petition.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that not only impugned
order (Annexure A-1) is cryptic, but is arbitrary as Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 98
of the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 mandates that in a
case where appointment made by the Managing Committee of an aided
school is not approved by the respondent-Directorate of Education
within 15 days, then there shall be deemed approval. To submit so,
reliance is placed by petitioner's counsel upon decision of a co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in Surendra Singh v. Manager, Haryana Shakti Sr.
Sec. School & Ors., 95 (2002) DLT 135.
3. Attention of this Court is also drawn by learned counsel for
petitioner to Proviso to Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 98 of the Delhi School
Education Act and Rules, 1973 to point out that when the government
nominee is not present, then only the approval of Directorate of
Education is required and also in a case, where there is difference of
opinion amongst the Members of the Selection Committee. It is pointed
out by petitioner's counsel that in the Minutes of Managing Committee's
meeting held on 26th July, 2017 (Annexure P-2), the Directorate's
nominee was acting as Vice-Principal of the School and the Managing
Committee had unanimously recommended petitioner's case for re-
employment and so, no approval was required and in any case, since the
approval did not come within mandatory period of 15 days, therefore,
there was a deemed approval. So, it is submitted on behalf of petitioner
that impugned order (Annexure A-1) deserves to be set aside and
respondent-School be directed to re-employ petitioner for a period of
two years.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent-Directorate of
Education submits that the aforesaid stand taken by petitioner is strongly
contested and so, either an opportunity to file a short affidavit be
provided to respondent-Directorate of Education or in the alternative, a
week's time be granted to permit respondent-Directorate of Education to
pass a speaking order within a week, so that factual position clearly
emerges before the Court. Learned counsel for respondent-Directorate of
Education maintains that there are good reasons for not granting
approval to petitioner's re-employment and the Rules referred to are not
applicable to the case of petitioner, as it is a case of re-employment for
which there is no provision in the Delhi School Education Act and Rules,
1973 and such re-employment is to be granted under the Office Order
(Annexure A-4).
5. Upon considering the submissions advanced by both the sides and
on perusal of the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973, the
material on record, the original record produced by respondent-
Directorate of Education and the decision cited, I find that a clear
picture is not before the Court and so, in order to bring on record the
complete facts, it is deemed appropriate to permit respondent-
Directorate of Education to substitute impugned order (Annexure A-1)
with a fresh order in which the entire factual background finds mention
and the reasons for not granting approval are dealt with.
6. In the facts and circumstances of this case, petitioner is permitted
to concisely put his stand as taken herein in form of a Representation
before respondent-Directorate of Education, within five working days
and respondent-Directorate of Education is called upon to decide the
said Representation by putting forth the correct and complete factual
position and to deal with the stand taken by petitioner in the
Representation by passing a speaking order while dealing with decision
in Surendra Singh (supra), within five days of receiving such a
Representation and the fate of the Representation be conveyed to
petitioner within two days thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of the
remedies as available in law, if need be. Since petitioner has already
retired, therefore, no interim order is called for.
7. With aforesaid directions, this petition and the application are
disposed of.
8. Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 30, 2017
s
