Back
2007 Supreme(Del) 985
High Court Of Delhi
KAILASH GAMBHIR
POONAM MALHOTRA (TAMAR) - Appellant
Versus
ARYA MODEL SCHOOL - Respondents
WP (C) 8899 Of 2004
Decided On : 05/09/2007
S.P.MINOCHA, Sanjeev Ralli, Sujata Kashyap
Temporary employment does not entitle an employee to claim permanent appointment, and the practice of adhocism should be discontinued.
Headnote:
Nursery Teacher - Employment Dispute - Delhi School Education Act, 1973 - [Delhi School Education Act, 1973] - The court discussed the petitioner's employment as a nursery teacher, the impugned order by the Directorate of Education, and the practice of adhoc appointments. The court highlighted the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act and emphasized the need to end the practice of adhocism and ensure compliance with the law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a nursery teacher, sought quashing of an order and reinstatement with back wages. The respondent school argued that the petitioner was employed on an adhoc basis and had no vested right to the position.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's employment was temporary and adhoc, and she had not taken action against her termination for over a year. The court emphasized that the petitioner's employment was not permanent and cited the Supreme Court's judgment on adhoc/temporary employees' claim for regular appointment.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner, employed as an adhoc teacher, had a right to claim permanent employment and reinstatement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's temporary employment did not entitle her to permanent appointment. The court emphasized that the practice of adhocism should be discontinued and regular appointments made following proper procedures.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court directed the Director of Education to ensure compliance with the order and take measures to end the practice of adhocism.
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
( 1 ) RULE. With the consent of counsel appearing for the parties the matter is taken up for final hearing. The petitioner who got employment as a nursery teacher with respondent No. 1 school is aggrieved with the order dated 24. 03. 2004 passed by respondent No. 2, the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi. The petitioner has sought quashing of the said order and has claimed reinstatement with full back wages and other perks/allowances etc. against respondent No. 1 school. The brief background of facts necessary for deciding the present writ petition inter-alia are that earlier the petitioner had filed a writ petition bearing CWP No. 7538/2003 on the same grounds and vide orders dated 18. 11. 2003 this Court in CWP No. 7558/2003 and CMP No. 12863/2003 gave the following directions:-
"counsel for the petitioner concedes that the offending acts of the respondents have not been brought to the notice of the Directorate of education who, under the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 has ample powers to look into the grievances which have been raised in the writ petition. Counsel says that liberty be granted to the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition to enable the petitioner to make a representation to the Directorate of Education. Liberty granted. Writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, however, it is directed that on the petitioners making a detailed representation to the directorate of Education, the same shall be processed and within four weeks of receipt of the representation, the same would be considered and disposed of by a detailed speaking order which shall be intimated to the petitioner. "
Pursuant to the said directions respondent No. 2 had passed impugned order dated 24. 03. 2003 and operative portion of the said impugned order is reproduced as under:-
"keeping in view the above facts and after carefully going through the file and various documents placed on record, it is quite clear that Mrs. Poonam Malhotra, (the petitioner) was appointed as Nursery Teacher on ad-hoc basis in an un-recognized school where she worked upto 31. 03. 2002. She was not allowed to continue with effect from 1. 4. 2002 but she filed the petition in nov. , 2003 and thus, no fresh directions can be given for reinstating her services in the Respondent school after a long gap of 19 months. However, strict directions are issued to the management of Arya Model School to immediately abandon the practice of recruiting teachers on ad-hoc basis and seek the approval of the Director of Education for the recognition of its Nursery wing, as per rules on the subject. "
( 2 ) BEING dissatisfied with the said order passed by the Directorate of Education the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the said order as well as claiming reinstatement on the post of Nursery Teacher with respondent No. 1 school. The claim of the petitioner is that she was employed as a Nursery Teacher w. e. f. 15. 11. 1999 on a monthly salary of Rs. 3000/- on adhoc basis and this temporary arrangement was extended from time to time by respondent No. 1 till 31. 03. 2002, thereafter, the petitioner was not allowed to resume her duties. The petitioner further stated that the petitioner was being forced to deposit Rs. 1400/- per month in some Donation Box (Danpatra) which was kept by the school in the school premises and when she had refused to contribute towards danpatra she met with the said fate of her removal. Petitioner further stated that her monthly salary was increased within this period and she also became a member of the Public Provident Fund, 1952 and necessary deductions towards the provident fund out of her monthly salary were being deposited. The petitioner further stated that the Principal of respondent No. 1, school, got five letters signed by the petitioner without mentioning any date on these letters so as to use them for some ulterior purposes. The petitioner has stated that neither appointment letter was issued i
