The scope of 'removal' under Section 8(3) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, and the applicability of the same to the Petitioner's relieving order.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking direction to Respondent No.1/Directorate of Education (`DoE') to ensure that Petitioner is treated as a regularly appointed teacher and her pay scales are accordingly fixed as per Section 10(1) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the `1973 Act').

2. Counter affidavit has been filed by Respondent No.2/Mount Columbus School (hereinafter referred to as `School') as well as DoE. In the counter affidavit filed by the School, a preliminary objection is raised to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that Petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal before the Delhi School Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as `DST') under Section 8(3) of the 1973 Act and therefore the writ petition is not maintainable. No rejoinder has been filed by the Petitioner refuting the preliminary objection.

3. First and foremost, this Court is required to examine the preliminary objection on maintainability of the writ petition and for which the narrative of facts as captured in the petition is as follows:

(A). Petitioner was appointed as TGT (Maths) in the School on 13.11.2017 and according to the Petitioner, the appointment was on a regular basis and which is why she was placed on probation;

(B). School was not paying the salary of the teachers including the Petitioner and despite the Petitioner having joined soon after the appointment and having worked continuously, her appointment was not being confirmed. This led to the Petitioner, along with some other teachers, filing a complaint on 22.05.2018 with DoE;

(C). As a counterblast to the complaint, School issued a backdated appointment letter showing the appointment of Petitioner as a `Guest Teacher' instead of a permanent/regular employee and malafidely followed it up with an appointment letter dated 05.09.2018 in which also the Petitioner was shown as a Guest Teacher appointed on temporary basis at a fixed salary of Rs.20,000/- per month. Having no other option, Petitioner accepted the appointment letter under the threat of losing her job;

(D). Petitioner thereafter submitted a representation dated 25.03.2019 to the School referring to certain Circulars of DoE to the effect that teachers cannot be appointed on temporary or ad hoc basis and their appointment can only be on regular basis with salaries and emoluments in accordance with Section 10(1) of the 1973 Act;

(E). School informed the Petitioner vide letter dated 29.04.2019 that her appointment was on a temporary basis and not ad hoc and the circulars were inapplicable. Vide a separate letter, Petitioner was informed of extension of her service till 28.05.2019. Aggrieved with this, Petitioner again made a representation on 07.05.2019 followed by a reminder on 15.05.2019. Not getting any favourable response, Petitioner filed the present writ petition on 23.05.2019 seeking directions to treat her as a regular appointee with pay scales of a regular teacher;

(F). After the writ petition was filed, a relieving order was issued on 28.05.2019 purportedly in continuation of the earlier letter dated 29.04.2019, relieving the Petitioner forthwith. Writ petition was not amended by the Petitioner to challenge the relieving order and as a result the only direction sought is to consider the Petitioner as a regular teacher entitled to regular pay scales.

4. Contentions of the Petitioner inter alia were that: (a) Petitioner was appointed pursuant to an open advertisement against a regular vacancy as there was no mention in the advertisement that applications were invited for appointment as Guest Teacher; (b) Petitioner was placed on probation only because she was a regular appointee and this is evident from the list of probationers sent by the School to DoE which document Petitioner received under Right to Information Act, 2005 from DoE; (c) all through, the School never questioned the genuineness or authenticity of this document nor was it