Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Del) 1971

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Sanjeev Narula, JJ.
Vinod Kumar Soran - Appellant
Versus
Delhi Public School & Ors. - Respondents
Letters Patent Appeal No. 26 of 2021; Civil Miscellaneous No. 2198 of 2021, 2199 of 2021
Decided On : 21-01-2021

Advocates appeared:
Manish Kumar Choudhary, Advocate, Puneet Mittal, Advocate, Vasudha Bajaj, Advocate, Abheisumat Gupta, Advocate, Gaurav Dhingra, Advocate

A teacher only has a right of consideration for re-employment beyond the age of superannuation and cannot claim re-employment as a matter of right. Unnecessary interference with the management and functioning of unaided schools is not permissible, and non-grant of re-employment does not cast any stigma.

Headnote:
Superannuation - Re-employment - Notifications no. F.30-3(28)/Coord/2006/1689-703 dated 29th January, 2007 and F.30-3(28)/Co-Ord/2006/4637-72 dated 28th February, 2007 - The court discussed the principles contained in the notifications and held that a teacher merely has a right of consideration for re-employment beyond the age of superannuation of 60 years and cannot claim re-employment as a matter of right. The court also emphasized that unnecessary interference with the management and functioning of unaided schools is not permissible and that non-grant of re-employment does not cast any stigma.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a teacher in the subject of Mathematics, filed a writ petition challenging the office order of superannuation and seeking re-employment. The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, and the appellant filed an application for recall of the order, which was also dismissed. The appellant argued that he was not given proper consideration for re-employment and that the reasons for denial were not communicated to him at the contemporaneous time.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appellant only has a right of consideration for re-employment and cannot claim re-employment as a matter of right. It held that unnecessary interference with the management and functioning of unaided schools is not permissible and that non-grant of re-employment does not cast any stigma.
Issues: The issues included the appellant's claim for re-employment, the consideration given by the Screening Committee, and the communication of reasons for denial of re-employment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that a teacher merely has a right of consideration for re-employment beyond the age of superannuation of 60 years and cannot claim re-employment as a matter of right. It emphasized that unnecessary interference with the management and functioning of unaided schools is not permissible and that non-grant of re-employment does not cast any stigma.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's claim for re-employment. The costs imposed on the appellant were waived due to the appellant's vision impairment.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. - The appeal impugns (i) the order dated 14th February, 2020 of the Single Judge, dismissing W.P.(C) 1723/2020 preferred by the appellant as withdrawn, with liberty to the appellant to initiate such other actions as may be available to the appellant in accordance with law; and, (ii) the order dated 16th March, 2020, of dismissal of CM No. 9938/2020, filed by the appellant/writ petitioner before the Single Judge for recall of the order dated 14th February, 2020, and seeks consideration of the writ petition on merits.

2. The senior counsel for the respondents No. 1 & 2 Delhi Public School and Delhi Public School Society and the counsel for respondent No. 3 Directorate of Education Delhi, appear on advance notice.

3. The appellant, a teacher in the subject of Mathematics in the respondent No. 1 Delhi Public School, R.K. Puram, New Delhi, who superannuated from the said school on attaining the age of 60 years on 30th September, 2019, filed the writ petition from orders wherein this appeal arises, impugning the office order dated 16th September, 2019 of the respondent No. 1 School of superannuation of the petitioner as well as the Minutes of Meeting held on 12th September, 2019 of the Screening Committee of respondent No. 1 School, finding the appellant not deserving of re-employment after attaining the age of superannuation i.e., 60 years and not recommending the appellant for re-employment. Consequent direction to the respondents No. 1 and 2 to grant extension of service/reemployment to the appellant for two years, with effect from 30th September, 2019, was also sought. The said writ petition came up first before the Single Judge on 14th February, 2020, when the counsel for the appellant, during the course of hearing, sought to withdraw the writ petition as aforesaid. The appellant thereafter, by engaging a new counsel, filed CM No. 9938/2020 before the Single Judge, for recall of the order dismissing the writ petition as withdrawn, pleading that the Single Judge before which the writ petition had come up for admission, during the course of hearing, had observed that the writ petition was not maintainable as it involved disputed questions of fact which could be decided only in a civil suit and it was the Single Judge who asked the counsel then appearing for the appellant to withdraw the writ petition and the said counsel, left with no other option, in a hurry withdrew the writ petition without consulting the appellant. The Single Judge dismissed the said application observing, that while according to the new counsel appearing for the appellant also, the misconduct in withdrawing the writ petition was on the part of the previous counsel and no ground for recall of the order was made out. Costs of Rs. 20,000/- were also imposed on the appellant for filing a misconceived application for restoration.

4. Though we do not find any error in the impugned orders inasmuch as litigants, when appear before the Court through lawyers are bound by the actions including decisions taken on the spot by the lawyers, and without taking any proceeding against the Advocate, cannot, merely by engaging a new Advocate, take the plea of being not bound by the decision of the action of the earlier lawyer. Reference if any in this regard may be made to Salil Dutta v. T.M. and M.C. Private Ltd., (1993) 2 SCC 185, Sukhdev Raj Arora v. M.K. Bhargava,MANU/DE/2756/2010 [SLP (C) No. 4354/2010 preferred whereagainst was dismissed on 19th February, 2010], Mohit v. Ram Pyari,MANU/DE/0288/2016and Ashwani Sharma v. Kanta Sharma,MANU/DE/0160/2017 [RFA(OS) 12/2017 preferred whereagainst was dismissed on 9th March, 2017].

5. We have asked the counsel today appearing for the appellant, whether before the Single Judge or along with the appeal, any affidavit or reply of the earlier Advocate who appeared for the appellant on 14th February, 2020, was filed.

6. The answer is in the negative.

7. Thus this is also a case of successive Advocates, by blami