Delhi High Court
Shashi Kumar Shrivastava vs Directorate Of Education And Anr. on 14 March, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: March 14, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 2367/2018 & CM No.9924/2018
SHASHI KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Rajat Aneja, Ms.Chandrika Gupta,
Ms.Nisha Sharma and Ms.Vandana
Aneja, Advocates
versus
DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION
AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Satyakam, ASC (GNCTD) for R-1
with Mr.Laxmi Narayan, Legal Assistant
(Directorate of Education)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. In the first round of litigation, petitioner had sought appointment as
a Lab Assistant in the year 2010 while claiming that the vacancy for the
post of Lab Assistant had arisen in June, 2010. Vide order of 3 rd March,
2017 in W.P.(C) No.8710/2010 Shashi Kumar Shrivastava Vs. The
Lieutenant Governor of Delhi & Ors., a Coordinate Bench of this Court
had issued the following directions:-
Respondent-Director of Education shall consider as to
whether the petitioner should be promoted to the post of Lab
Assistant with the respondent no.3/school. The respondent
no.2/Director of Education will examine all aspects as stated
above including as to whether the petitioner fulfills the
eligibility criteria for being appointed to the post of Lab
Assistant, when the petitioner can be said to have fulfilled
the eligibility criteria including of three years working in the
feeder cadre post, whether there were posts which were
available or had to be available with the respondent
no.3/school of Lab Assistants, whether there were vacancies
in such posts of Lab Assistants, whether petitioner had the
necessary seniority of satisfying the eligibility criteria for
being appointed to the post of Lab Assistant by the
respondent no.3/school, etc etc. Respondent no.2/Director
of Education or his nominee will decide the issue after
hearing the parties, being the petitioner and the respondent
No.3/school. Respondent No.2/Director of Education or its
nominee will pass a speaking order which will be
communicated to the parties. Needful be done by the
respondent No.2/Director of Education or its nominee within
a period of three months from today.
2. Vide order of 27th July, 2017 (Annexure P-11), respondent-
Directorate of Education has directed the Management of respondent-
school to constitute a Departmental Promotion Committee for filling up
the post of Lab Assistant by way of promotion from all eligible Group
'D' employees of the school. In pursuance to the aforesaid order,
respondent-school vide office order of 26th September, 2017 (Annexure
P-12) has upon recommendations of the Departmental Promotion
Committee promoted petitioner to the post of Lab Assistant with effect
from 1st August, 2017 in the pay scale of `5200 - 20200 + `2400/-GP.
3. The grievance of petitioner in this petition is that promotion of
petitioner ought to relate back to the year 2010 and the grade pay has to
be `2,800/- instead of `2,400/-. To submit so, petitioner's counsel relies
upon orders of 10th October, 2017 (Annexure P-14) and 18th July, 2009
(Annexure P-15). Learned Standing Counsel for respondent-Directorate
of Education fairly states that there is no proper compliance of the order
of 3rd March, 2017 in the order (Annexure P-11) passed by the
respondent-Directorate of Education.
4. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order (Annexure P-12)
and the material on record, I find that this Court vide order of 3 rd March,
2017 (Annexure P-11) had directed respondent-Directorate of Education
to clarify as to whether the post of Lab Assistant was available in the
respondent-school when petitioner became eligible for being appointed
on the post of Lab Assistant. It is also required to be clarified by
respondent-Directorate of Education as to whether petitioner was eligible
or not, when the vacancy for the promotional post in question came into
existence. This factual aspect was required to be spelt out in the
impugned order (Annexure P-12). Petitioner's claim of seniority from the
date when the post of Lab Assistant fell vacant, needs to be considered.
Petitioner's claim for grade pay of `2,800/- also needs to be considered
by the respondent-Directorate of Education.
5. In the facts and circumstances of this case, respondent-Directorate
of Education is called upon to look into the aforesaid aspects and intimate
petitioner. Let needful be done within a period of twelve weeks and
petitioner be intimated about it, so that petitioner may avail of the remedy
as available in law, if need be.
6. With aforesaid directions, this petition and the application are
disposed of.
Copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for the parties.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 14, 2018
mamta
