IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, ASHA MENON, JJ.
Ravi Negi - Appellant
Versus
Balvantray Mehta Vidya Bhawan Anguridevi Shersingh Memorial Academy – Second Shift & Others - Respondent
LPA. No. 482 of 2019
Decided On : 05-01-2021
Mandamus - Employment Dispute - Delhi School Education Act, 1973 - Rule 96, Rule 105
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought direction to regularize his services in a school, fix his Grade Pay, and pay arrears of salary. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as premature due to a pending inquiry against the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's appointment was contractual and not in compliance with the Rules for appointment in an unaided recognized school. The court held that without a legal right, no mandamus could be granted. The court also noted that the appellant failed to show his appointment to be statutory and that the appointment/recruitment would be non-est without compliance with Rule 96.
Issues: The issues revolved around the appellant's claim for regularization and statutory protection of his employment in the school.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that without compliance with Rule 96, no statutory protection would enure to the appointee, and the appointment/recruitment would be non-est. The court also emphasized that appointments initially contractual cannot be treated as statutory without returning a finding of the contractual appointment being a sham and a device for regular appointment.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
[Via Video Conferencing]
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
CM APPL. 154/2021 (of the appellant for early hearing)
1. Only the counsel for the respondent no.3 Directorate of Education (DoE) appears on advance notice.
2. Be that as it may, need is not felt to issue notice of this application to the other respondents.
3. For the reasons stated, the application is allowed and disposed of and the LPA is taken up for hearing today itself.
LPA 482/2019 & CM No.33095/2019 (for stay)
4. Though, the appeal was listed before this Court on a number of occasions but a perusal of the orders show that no notice of the appeal has been issued till now and only the counsel for the DoE has been appearing on advance notice. We have thus requested the counsel for the appellant to argue the appeal for admission.
5. The appeal impugns the order dated 1st July, 2019 of the Single Judge of dismissal of W.P.(C) No.6914/2019 preferred by the appellant, seeking direction to the respondent no.1 Balvantray Mehta Vidya Bhawan Anguridevi Shersingh Memorial Academy–Second Shift (School), an unaided recognised school and the respondent no.2 Servants of the People Society (Delhi) (Society) which has set up the respondent no.1 School, to (a) regularise the services of the appellant in the respondent no.1 School on the permanent post of Office Attendant, at par with similar employees working in the same post in Delhi Government Schools under the Delhi School Education Act, 1973; (b) fix the Grade Pay of the appellant in terms of the recommendations of the Seventh Pay Commission, with effect from the date of appointment of the appellant; and, (c) pay arrears of salary found due to the appellant with interest.
6. The writ petition came up before the Single Judge on 1st July, 2019, when finding that the respondent no.1 School had issued a Show Cause Notice dated 28th May, 2019 to the appellant and the appellant had also filed a reply thereto, and recording the statement of the counsel for the respondent no.1 School that a preliminary inquiry had been initiated and if required, a regular departmental inquiry shall be conducted against the appellant, the petition was disposed of as premature.
7. The counsel for the appellant, on enquiry states that no further action was taken against the appellant by the respondent no.1 School pursuant to the said show cause notice and the preliminary inquiry stated to have been conducted.
8. The argument of the counsel for the appellant is, that (i) the appellant was appointed as Office Attendant in the respondent no.1 School, on contractual basis, with effect from 1st April, 2014 on a consolidated salary; (ii) the said contract of the appellant was renewed from time to time, last till 30th June, 2019, whereafter the Show Cause Notice dated 28th May, 2019 was issued to the appellant; (iii) there is no termination of the employment of the appellant and the appellant is merely prohibited from entering the school; and, attention is drawn to Rule 105 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 and it is argued that thereunder the employment of the appellant in the respondent no.1 School, even if contractual, is deemed to have been confirmed after the expiry of two years; it is argued that the appellant worked in the respondent no.1 School contractually, for a period of five years and is deemed to be a permanent employee of the respondent no.1 School, under the statutory protection; reliance is placed on Army Public School Vs. Narendra Singh Nain 2013 SCC OnLine Del 3351 and which has been screen-shared during the hearing and it is stated that the appeal preferred thereagainst to the Division Bench was also dismissed; reference is also made to the judgments of this Court in Anita Soharu Guleria Vs. Director of Education 2015 SCC OnLine Del 7983, Renu Barrot Vs. Directorate of Education 2015 SCC OnLine Del 9203 and Delhi Public School Vs. Manoj Bhandari 2016 SCC OnLine Del 5910 and it is stated that Army Public School supra is followed therein.
9. We hav
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.