MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. By way of this writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks directions for quashing the letter dated 24.02.2010 issued by the Principal of the Sant Nirankari School, thereby informing the petitioner about rejection of her appointment on the post of Librarian, based on the instructions received by the respondent School from Director of Education vide their letter No. 114, dated 19.02.2010.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 4 gave an advertisement for the vacant posts in its school in the Hindustan Times dated 07.06.2008. The petitioner applied for the post of TGT Librarian. The petitioner was called by the respondent No.4 on 19.06.2008 for verification of her certificate vide letter dated 17.06.2008. After verification of the document, by letter dated 01.07.2008 the petitioner was asked to appear for interview before the selection board on 08.07.2008.

3. The interview of various candidates was conducted by the staff selection committee as per the rules of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973. And that after the selection, the petitioner was given an offer letter dated 23.07.2008 to join as TGT Librarian. The petitioner joined the School of respondent No. 4 on 25.07.2008 initially on probation of 2 years.

4. As no salary was paid to the petitioner, she filed W.P. (C) No. 581/2010 titled as “Promila Dixit vs. Govt. of NCT & Ors.” seeks direction to respondents to release the salary of the petitioner along with all consequential benefits. The petitioner alleged that during the pendency of the aforesaid petition, the petitioner came to know that the respondents are planning to terminate the services of the petitioner. The petitioner moved a Misc. application in the said writ petition which was listed before the Court but the same was withdrawn unconditionally.

5. Meanwhile the respondents issued a letter No. 114 dated 19.02.2010 to the school whereby the Director of Education rejected the appointment of the petitioner and immediately on the same day, the Principal of the school orally communicated to the petitioner that her appointment has been rejected on the ground of over age. On 24.02.2010 Principal of respondent school issued a letter, stating therein that the services of the petitioner are no more required. Thus, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

6. The main contentions of the petitioner are that the post of Librarian falls in the category of TGT Misc. category. At the time of appointment for the post of Librarian, the age of the petitioner was 35 years and six months and 28 days and as per order No.F-1/16/3/R and S/79 dated 1.11.1980 issued by Delhi Administration there was a provision for age relaxation for a period of ten years to the women candidates in case of appointment of teacher. Even as per DO letter No.F.44-7/75/UTI dated 29.10.1975 the relaxation period of maximum 15 years period can be added in case of experience of teaching in recognized school. As the post of Librarian is equivalent to the post of miscellaneous teacher, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of relaxation of age. It was alleged that similar benefit of relaxation is provided to the other woman candidates including one Mrs. Amita who has been appointed to the post of TGT Librarian in an aided school namely S.D. Secondary School (Gujrat), Kirti Nagar, New Delhi.

7. The petitioner has also referred an advertisement dated 01.06.2008 published in Times of India issued by the Lakshmi Devi Jain Girls Sr. Sec. School, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi-110006, for the post of Librarian, General Category wherein the age limit offered for the said post is below forty years.

8. In order to take the benefit of relaxation of age, it is stated that the petitioner applied before the respondent no.4 school through proper channel. She was earlier employed with Little Star Public Sec. School which was recognized. The experience certificate was counter signe