SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(Del) 2481

High Court Of Delhi
SANJIV KHANNA
ANITA MISHRA - Appellant
Versus
GOVT. OF N. C. T. OF DELHI - Respondents
LPA 243 Of 2003
Decided On : 10/25/2007

An illegal appointment does not confer any right to claim regularisation, and the appellant cannot benefit from the respondent's wrong.

Headnote:

Regularisation - Appointment of Assistant Teacher - The court held that the appointment of the appellant was temporary and on an emergent basis, and the terms and conditions clearly stipulated that the appointment was against the statutory rules. The court emphasized that an illegal appointment does not confer any right to claim regularisation, and the appellant cannot benefit from the respondent's wrong. The decision of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and others was cited to support the court's finding.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, appointed as an Assistant Teacher in a government school, filed a writ petition seeking regularisation of her services. The writ petition was dismissed by the Single Judge, and the appellant appealed against this decision.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appellant's appointment was made on an emergent basis and in violation of the statutory rules, and therefore, she had no right to claim regularisation. The court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that an illegal appointment does not confer any right to claim regularisation.

Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the appellant's appointment and her right to claim regularisation despite the irregularity of her appointment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an illegal appointment does not confer any right to claim regularisation, and the appellant cannot benefit from the respondent's wrong. The decision of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and others was cited to support this finding.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court directed the appellant to raise her grievance regarding unpaid salary with the school authorities.

MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, CJ.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 17th February, 2003 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. The appellant was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Government Girls Senior secondary School No. 1, Shakarpur, Delhi by an order dated 30th August, 1997. A copy of the said order is placed on record. A bare perusal of the aforesaid order would indicate that it was issued by the Principal of Government Girls senior Secondary School No. 1, Shakarpur, Delhi. The appointment letter stipulated the following terms and conditions:

"1. The appointment is purely temporary and on emergent basis which may be terminated at any time without any notice. 2. The appointment shall not confer any right or claim whatsoever of regular appointment, seniority or any other kind of benefit. 3. She will be paid a fixed salary of Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. One thousand only) per month to be collected from the students through P. T. A. fund. 4. In case, she avails of any kind of leave, during the period of her stay in the school, necessary deductions from salary to that extent shall be made. 5. She will not claim any right for absorption or higher pay at any stage in future. 6. She is directed to report for duty w. e. f. 1. 9. 97 (F/n ). "

( 2 ) THE appellant filed the writ petition praying for a direction to the respondents to regularise her services as permanent Assistant Teacher in the school. The learned Single Judge considered the terms and conditions of her appointment and on hearing the counsel for the parties held that the aforesaid appointment of the appellant was made only on emergent basis and her salary was to be paid out of the funds to be collected through the Parent Teacher association funds. It was also held that the appointment of the appellant would not confer any right upon her to claim regularisation. It was observed that the appellant having been appointed in violation of the recruitment rules would not have any right to be regularised in service. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the present appeal was filed on which we have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Counsel for the parties have also drawn our attention to the terms and conditions of appointment as spelt out in the order dated 30th August, 1997. The said order clearly stipulated that the appointment of the appellant was a temporary appointment on emergent basis. She was also directed to be paid a fixed salary of Rs. 1,000/- per month, which was to be paid from the money collected through the Parent Teacher Association Fund. The order was issued by the Principal of the school, who was not the appointing authority as the aforesaid school was a government school. The Director of Education was the appointing authority of an assistant Teacher in a Government school and in respect of the aforesaid, no dispute could be raised. Procedure for appointment of an Assistant Teacher is also laid down in the statutory rules, which governs such appointment. The aforesaid appointment, therefore, was against the said procedure and the same being in violation of the statutory rules, no order for regularisation can be made on the basis of such an order of appointment.

( 4 ) COUNSEL appearing for the appellant has also submitted before us that even if it is held that the aforesaid appointment of the appellant was irregular and in violation of the provisions of the rules, yet the respondent cannot take advantage of their own wrong and/or deny regularisation of the services of the appellant since she has rendered about four years of service.

( 5 ) WE are unable to agree with the counsel for the appellant and we are not persuaded by the aforesaid submissions. If a wrong is committed, the same has to be rectified and such a wrong cannot be allowed to be perpetuated only because she was allowed to work in that school on the basis of such an i



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top