Delhi High Court
Saroj Bala vs State Of Nct Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 12 April, 2018
#3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 12.04.2018
LPA 218/2017
SAROJ BALA ..... Appellant
versus
STATE OF NCT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant : Mr CSS Tomar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, ASC for GNCTD with Ms. Deboshree Mukherjee,
Advocate for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
JUDGMENT
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
1. The present Letters Patent Appeal assails a judgment and order dated
17.02.2017 rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby
W.P.(C) No. 5196/2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'subject petition')
instituted on behalf of the appellant, seeking regularisation of services
came to be dismissed.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has raised two
distinct issues. The first submission made on behalf of the appellant is
that by way of the impugned judgment and order dated 17.02.2017,
another writ petition bearing No. 989/2010, instituted on behalf of
Smt. Saroj Devi who is similarly situated as the appellant was
allowed, whereas the subject petition was rejected.
3. In this behalf it is urged that both the petitions were predicated on a
circular dated 22.07.2009 issued by the Directorate of Education,
GNCTD (hereinafter referred to as 'subject notification'), which
regularised services of certain part-time workers against regular vacant
Group D post of waterman/water-woman.
4. The argument raised on behalf of the appellant is specious, inasmuch
as, in the case of Smt. Saroj Devi, it was not the case of the official
respondents that the former was not working on a sanctioned post,
whereas in relation to the appellant, it is the case of the official
respondents that there is no vacant post in Group D of water-woman.
5. It is in view of this finding that the learned Single Judge was pleased
to observe as follows:-
"7. The reliefs prayed in this writ petition are identical
to the reliefs prayed in W.P.(C) No. 989/2010, however,
reliefs in this writ petition cannot be granted because the
school in the present case in which petitioner was
working as a part time water woman being Guru Nanak
Girls Middle School/respondent no.2 was only entitled
to have two full time employees and two part time
employees in Group-D posts because respondent no.2's
school enrolment was below 400, and already in the
respondent no.2/school there existed two part time and
two full time employees in Group-D posts already
working, when the petitioner was appointed. Hence
there was no sanctioned post available so far as the
petitioner/Smt. Saroj Bala is concerned to which she
was appointed and once there is no sanctioned post, then
there cannot be regularization of a person working in a
post which is not a sanctioned post inasmuch as the
circular of the respondent no.1/DOE dated 22.07.2009
only applies to regular vacant Group-D post."
6. The appellant next urged that, the stipulation that the respondent
school was only entitled to have two full time employees and two part-
time employees in Group D post because its enrolment was below
400, cannot come in the way of the appellant's regularization, for the
reason that the said requirement was prescribed subsequently, upon
the promulgation of the post fixation order dated 25.06.2010 by the
Directorate of Education, GNCTD for the year 2009-10 and the same
cannot have retrospective operation.
7. We are unable to agree with this contention, in view of the
circumstance that the said order dated 25.06.2010 was issued in
pursuance to earlier circulars mentioned therein and was directed in
respect of post fixation for the year 2009-10 in Government Aided
Schools.
8. In this behalf, it would be pertinent to observe that the respondents in
their counter-affidavits have clearly and unequivocally stated that
there are no vacant posts in Group D for a full time water-woman in
the respondent school.
9. In this view of the matter, the claim of the appellant which is
predicated on subject notification dated 22.07.2009, cannot be
sustained, as regularisation of services of a water-woman can only be
against a regular vacant Group D post, which is the sine qua non for
the said appointment. The factum of there being no vacant post as
asseverated on behalf of the respondents has not been controverted on
behalf of the appellant.
10. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the
impugned judgment and order does not warrant any interference by us
in the present appeal.
11. The appeal being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
(JUDGE)
DEEPA SHARMA
(JUDGE)
APRIL 12, 2018
as
