Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, J.
Victoria Girls Sr Sec School - Appellant
Versus
Director Of Education - Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 6712 of 2020; CM Appls. No. 23321 of 2020, 34429 of 2020, 7444 of 2021, 7445 of 2021
Decided On : 31-05-2021
Condonation of Delay - Writ Petition - Delhi School Education Act, 1973 - Rule 110 - Re-employment of Teachers - Ultra Vires and Unconstitutional - Vested Right - Retrospective Effect - Minority Educational Institution - Policy Decision - Legitimate Expectation
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, a senior secondary school and its teachers, filed a writ petition challenging the order discontinuing the provision of re-employment of Teachers/Vice Principals/Principals after superannuation. The petitioners contended that the impugned order was arbitrary, violative of Article 14, and interfered with their right to administer vested in the management of the school. The respondents argued that the petition was not maintainable and that the impugned order was a policy decision taken in the larger interest of the students.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order was within the executive power of the Directorate of Education and was a policy decision to recall the earlier decision to provide re-employment. The court held that the decision was not unreasonable and was taken in the larger public interest. The court dismissed the petition and the applications seeking modification of the order.
Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the petition, the validity of the impugned order, the rights of the petitioners in a minority educational institution, and the applicability of the principle of legitimate expectation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned order was a valid policy decision taken in the larger public interest and was not unreasonable. The court also found that the principle of legitimate expectation did not apply in this case due to the nature of the re-employment being for a fixed period and the reasons for revoking the policy of re-employment.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and the applications, with an observation for the Directorate to consider the aspect of filling up subsequent vacancies and convey its decision to the school within four weeks.
JUDGMENT
V. Kameswar Rao, J. - Cm. Nos. 7444/2021 & 7445/2021
These two applications have been filed by the respondents seeking condonation of 20 days delay in filing the counter-affidavit to the petition.
For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 20 days is condoned. Counter-affidavit is taken on record. Applications stand disposed of.
W.P.(C) 6712/2020
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:
"In view of the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, direction or order quashing the impugned order dated 10.09.2020 issued by Respondent No.1 as ultra vires and unconstitutional.
(b) Allow the Petitioners No. 2 to 4 to continue in reemployment till they attain the age of 62 years as approved by the Respondent No. 1.
(c) Pass any other order(s) in view of aforesaid facts and circumstances to meet the end of justice."
2. In substance, the challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated September 10, 2020 bearing No/PS/DE/2020/ ("impugned order", for short) issued by the Office of Director of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi / respondent No.1. The impugned order reads as under:
"OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF EUDCATION GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI OLD SECRETARIAT, DELHI-110054 | ||
| ||
No/Ps/DE/2020/ | ORDER | Dated:-10.09.2020 |
| ||
SUBJECT: DISCONTINUING THE PROVISION OF RE-EMPLOYMENT IN R/O TEACHERS/VICE PRINCIPALS/PRINCIPALS | ||
Whereas the system for Re-employment of Teachers was notified and later extended to Vice Principals and Principals in view of the large number of vacancies which existed at that time in the Directorate of Education. | ||
And Whereas the Department has recently been able to fill a large number of vacant posts through Direct Recruitments. | ||
As such the system of Re-Employment of Teachers/Vice Principals/Principals is no longer required. | ||
Now, therefore, the provision of Re-Employment of Teachers/Vice Principals/Principals is discontinued with immediate effect. Accordingly, all types of Re-employment granted for the session 2020-21 in govt. and govt. aided schools shall cease to be in force with immediate effect and no re-employment shall be granted to the Teachers/Vice Principals/principals in govt. and govt. aided schools, henceforth. Now, therefore, the provision of Re-Employment of Teachers/Vice Principals/Principals is discontinued with immediate effect. Accordingly, all types of Re-employment granted for the session 2020-21 in govt. and govt. aided schools shall cease to be in force with immediate effect and no re-employment shall be granted to the Teachers/Vice Principals/principals in govt. and govt. aided schools, henceforth. | ||
UDIT PRAKASH RAI DIRECTOR (EDUCATION) | ||
xxx | xxxx" | |
3. The petitioner No.1 herein is a senior secondary school established in the year 1868 at Delhi for the education of Christian minorities and it was affiliated to Central Board of Secondary Education in 1966. The petitioner No.1 school was granted minority status on September 03, 2008. The petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4 are teachers working with the petitioner No.1 school who have been re-employed after attaining the age the superannuation in terms of Rule 110 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 ("DSE Rules", for short). Relevant portion of Rule 110 reads as under:
"110. Retirement age
(1) Except where an existing employee is entitled to have a higher age of retirement, every employee of a recognised private school, whether aided or not, shall hold office until he attains the age of 58 years.
Provided that the managing committee may grant extension to a teacher for a period not exceeding two years in the aggregate, if in the opinion of the managing committee such teacher is fit tor such extension and has no mortal or physical incapacity which would disentitle him to get such extension:
Provided further that no such extension shall be granted in the case of a teacher of an aided school except with the pre
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a policy decision to recall a previous decision, taken in the larger public interest, is valid and not unreasonable. The principle of legitima....
The court held that the government may withdraw re-employment provisions for retired teachers according to policy changes, and that no vested rights were violated as re-employment was contingent upon....
The word 'shall' in Rule 110(2) of the Delhi School Education Rules obligates schools to grant re-employment to teachers who retire after November 1 until April 30 of the following year, ensuring edu....
Education Law - Employment and Re-Employment - Age of Retirement - Proviso to Statute 16.24 (2) carves out an exception to the main provision, inasmuch as it provides that a teacher whose date of sup....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of meritorious conduct for re-employment and the limited scope for judicial review in matters of re-employment in unaided schools.
Re-employment of teachers is at the discretion of the employer and not a vested right; conduct of the teacher must be considered.
Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is maintained only when a private dispute involves a public law element; the petitioner was entitled to re-employment under statutory provisions.
Pre-regularization service under scheme cannot count for cadre seniority; executive orders cannot override statutory recruitment rules.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
