Yogita Chauhan vs Office Deputy Directorate Of ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 7318 Del

$~15
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                         Reserved on: 07.12.2018
                                         Pronounced on:12.12.2018

+      W.P.(C) 9303/2018 and CM APPL 36913/2018

       YOGITA CHAUHAN                                          ..... Petitioner
                   Through:              Ms. Shikha Sapra, Adv.

                            versus

       OFFICE DEPUTY DIRECTORATE OF
       EDUCATION NCT OF DELHI                              ..... Respondents
                    Through: Ms.Mini                 Pushkarna, Adv. for
                              GNCTD

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

                                     JUDGMENT

1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction thereby

directing the respondent for quashing and setting aside the impugned

order dated 24.04.2018. Consequently, directing the respondent to issue

joining letter to petitioner forthwith.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent advertised a

public notice dated 26.05.2017 for "Drawing a Panel for Guest

Teachers for Empanelment in Delhi Government Schools for the

Academic Year 2017-18." The respondent took out another public

notice dated 28.09.2017 calling all the selected Guest Teachers for the

verification of their documents as per the given schedule. On

16.10.2017, the petitioner got selected and in pursuance thereto, got her

documents and credentials verified with respondent. On 28.01.2018,

the petitioner gave birth to a child through caesarean process. The

respondent vide its another circular dated 30.01.2018 directed the

selected candidates to appear at their office between 01.02.2018 to

03.02.2018 for further verification of documents. Despite the fact that

the petitioner had a caesarean delivery only few days prior, she

appeared on 03.02.2018 before the office of the respondent for final

verification of her documents. However, the respondent behaved

differently and even harassed her by not marking her attendance.

Accordingly, the petitioner wrote a letter to respondent on 03.02.2018

itself requesting the respondent for marking her attendance and

issuance of the joining letter.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that being aggrieved by the

inaction on part of the respondent authority, despite several visits and

complaints, the petitioner filed a Civil Writ Petition bearing

no.1673/2018 and the same was disposed of vide order dated

21.02.2018 directing respondent to positively respond to petitioner's

letter within a period of two weeks and the fate of the same be

conveyed to the petitioner within a week. The respondent failed to

comply with the aforesaid order. Therefore, the petitioner was

compelled to move a contempt petition vide Contempt Case (Civil)

No.309/2018, thereafter only the respondent passed the impugned

order.

4. Not satisfied with the order, the petitioner preferred an RTI

application and received a reply thereto wherein it was revealed that

respondent had 33 vacancies in the UR/general category for the post of

PGT/Lecturer (Hindi) and because of joining of only 21 candidates in

the said category and post, there are 12 posts lying vacant in the current

advertisement cycle till date.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the

petitioner was eligible to empanel for Guest Teachers, therefore, she

was called for verification of the documents. However, even her

attendance was not marked by the respondent and not kept in the panel

of the Guest Teachers.

6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, it is

stated that the claim of the petitioner for engaging as a Guest Teacher

on the basis of public notice dated 26.05.2017, was only for the

Academic Year 2017-18 for engaging upto 10.05.2018 or

commencement of summer vacations whichever is earlier. Thus, the

present petition deserves to be dismissed.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits

that a public notice dated 26.05.2017 shows that the purpose of issuing

the said public notice was only making a panel of Guest Teachers.

Therefore, once the panel has been finalized, further engagement as

Guest Teacher is to be taken on the basis of requirement expressed by

any school. Therefore, any person who was engaged pursuant to the

said public notice was enrolled in the panel of Guest Teachers. Such

person, who is enrolled as Guest Teacher in the panel, has not any

vested or legal right to be further engaged as a Guest Teacher. Thus,

there is no merit in the petition and deserves to be dismissed.

8. I heard learned counsel for the parties.

9. In the counter affidavit, it is admitted that there are currently 20

candidates, who are on panel, have not been allotted any school yet, but

supplied only list of 18 candidates those are on panel. Whereas, as per

order dated 11.12.2017 passed in Contempt Case (Civil) No.1133/2016,

it is admitted fact that 26031 are vacancies for teachers, which did not

include 9000 new posts created by Government of NCT of Delhi, were

still lying vacant in the schools run by Government of NCT of Delhi

and three Municipalities. Moreover, when the vacancies would be

filled on a regular basis, "last in first out" principle will be applicable.

10. In the impugned order dated 24.04.2018, it is stated by the

respondent that the candidature of the petitioner may be considered for

the post of Guest Teacher PGT (Hindi) in future, subject to availability

of the vacancy and subject to the production of Medical Fitness

Certificate from the competent medical authority.

11. It is not in dispute that petitioner can be put in the panel of

Guest Teachers only if she is medically fit. However, that situation has

not come in the present case. It is also not in dispute that all the

candidates including the petitioner were directed to appear in the office

of the respondent between 01.02.2018 to 03.02.2018. The petitioner

despite the fact that she had a caesarean delivery only few days back,

appeared before the office of the respondent on 03.02.2018.

12. Putting the name of the petitioner in the panel of Guest

Teachers would not give any legal right to be appointed in any of the

school. The panel shall be utilized as and when there is requirement

from any school and the selected candidates from the panel of Guest

Teachers shall be removed when the regular teachers are appointed.

13. This Court during hearing of the present case specifically asked

from the counsel for respondent that whether the panel prepared

pursuant to public notice dated 26.05.2017, has been scrabbed. In

reply, it is not denied. It is stated that the petitioner may participate as

and when respondent invite application for drawing a panel for Guest

Teachers. It seems that the panel which is made pursuant to public

notice dated 26.05.2017 is continued, but the petitioner has been denied

for adding her name in the panel for Guest Teachers.

14. This Court also put a specific query to the counsel for the

respondent that if any candidate is simply put in the panel for Guest

Teachers whether he would be entitled for salary or any perks, learned

counsel for the respondent replied in negative and submits that the

service of the Guest Teachers shall be utilized on daily basis, as and

when there is a requirement from any school. Thus, the Guest Teachers

are not burden on the Public Exchequer.

15. It is not disputed that the petitioner is eligible for panel for

Guest Teachers. Therefore, I am of the view that the respondent due to

some communication gap has not selected the petitioner for the panel

for Guest Teachers.

16. It is established that the petitioner got selected on 16.10.2017,

however, she delivered a child through caesarean process on

28.07.2018. Thereafter, vide another circular dated 30.07.2018, the

selected candidates were directed to appear at their office between

01.02.2018 to 03.02.2018 and despite the fact that the petitioner had a

caesarean delivery, she appeared before the office for verification of

document. The respondent did not entertain the petitioner's case,

thinking that she recently delivered a child through caesarean process,

therefore would not be able to work if any requirement comes from the

school.

17. Women who constitute almost half of the segment of our

society have to be given due weightage and honoured and treated with

dignity at places where they work to earn their livelihood. To become a

mother is the most natural phenomena in the life of a woman. Whatever

is needed to facilitate the birth of child to a woman who is in service,

the employer has to be considerate and sympathetic towards her and

must realise the physical difficulties which a working woman would

face in performing her duties at the work place while carrying a baby in

the womb or while looking after the child after birth.

18. Based upon the aforesaid discussion, I direct the respondent to

give place to the petitioner in the panel maintained by the respondent

and her services can be utilized as and when required by any school

obviously subject to her medical fitness.

19. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to issue necessary order

to this effect within two weeks from the receipt of this order.

20. The petition is, accordingly, allowed.

CM APPL. No.36913/2018

21. In view of the order passed in the present writ petition, this

application has been rendered infructuous and is accordingly, disposed

of such.

(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE DECEMBER 12, 2018 ab