The Court established that the Rules of 1967, as amended in 2010, governed the recruitment to the post of LDC in government aided schools, and the Rules of 2009 were applicable to the petitioner's case.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. - The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-

"In the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made herein, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

a. Issue a writ declaring that the circular dated 27.10.1993 bearing no. DE.15/Act/59/93/RR/14680- 14736 claimed by respondents 1 to 3 to be the 1993 Recruitment Rules for appointment of Lower Division Clerk in a private aided recognised school are not the appropriate recruitment rules as they were never approved and or notified and are thus, non-existent.

b. Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing the impugned order dated 26.02.2020 passed by Respondent no. 2.

c. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writ thereby holding the promotion of petitioner to the post of L.D.C. in accordance with Delhi Administration Subordinate Services Rules, 1967 as amended on 02.02.2010, as recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting dated 23.09.2011 (Annexure P-5), w.e.f. the date of promotion i.e. 24.09.2011, to be valid and consequently direct respondents to grant all consequential relief to petitioner, including salary w.e.f. the date of appointment with interest @ 18% p.a.

d. Direct initiation of departmental proceedings against respondent no. 2, who without application of mind passed the impugned order in a clandestine manner, in defiance with order dated 05.12.2019 passed in W.P.{C) No. 4355/2018 and also interfered in the administration of justice by relying upon nonexistent recruitment rules.

e. Hold that the ratio of previous judgements passed in W.P.{C) No. 3502 of 2012 and W.P.{C) No. 3907 of 2017 are based on wrong facts & erroneous proposition of law and hence, being non-est, not applicable to petitioner's case.

f. Award exemplary cost & damages in favour of the petitioner and against respondents 1 to 3. Such other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents."

2. The challenge in this petition is primarily to the order dated February 26, 2020 passed by the Dy. Director of Education thereby holding that the Delhi Administration Subordinate Services (Amendment) Rules, 2009 ('Rules of 2009', in short) (notified on February 02, 2010) are not applicable in the petitioner's case and therefore the promotion of the petitioner from the post of Waterman to Lower Division Clerk ('LDC', for short) was not acceded to.

3. The brief facts as noted from the impugned order are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Waterman in Sardar Amar Singh Sher-I-Punjab Pindi Gheb Khalsa Senior Secondary School ('School', in short), an aided minority School on March 07, 1995 and was promoted to the post of LDC by the School Management Committee vide DPC dated September 24, 2011. The Directorate of Education cancelled the said appointment of the petitioner to the post of LDC on the ground that it was in complete violation and non-compliance of the provisions of the Recruitment Rules notified on October 27, 1993, as the said Rules contemplate the appointment to the post of LDC through direct recruitment and not promotion. The effect of the cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner was that the petitioner was reverted back to the post of Waterman vide order dated October 24, 2017. The School also vide order dated November 08, 2017 cancelled the promotion of the petitioner with retrospective effect i.e September 24, 2011 and reverted him to the post of Waterman.

4. The petitioner, being aggrieved with the action of Directorate and the School, filed W.P.(C) No. 11627/2017, which was disposed of by this Court on December 22, 2017 directing the Department to pass an appropriate order on the petitioner's petition seeking review of the impugned orders.

5. In compliance with the order of this Cour