Re-employment of teachers is at the discretion of the employer and not a vested right; conduct of the teacher must be considered.

JUDGMENT

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

"In the premises delineated hereinabove it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased:

a) to issue an appropriate writ in the form of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction thereby directing the Respondents to re-appoint the Petitioner for Five years in view of government notifications and to reject the impugned minutes of meeting of the LMC meeting dated 03.07.2018;

(b) to pass any other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

2. It is the case of the petitioner and so contended by her counsel that the petitioner retired as Head Mistress/HoS from DAV School, Bawana on May 31, 2016. That on September 27, 2013, the Lieutenant Governor issued an order under Rule 43 of the DELHI SCHOOL EDUCATION RULES , 1973 to allow reemployment of Teachers/Vice-Principals and Principals in private unaided Schools.

3. In March, 2016, the Local Management Committee of the School recommended the case of the petitioner for extension of her services beyond May 31, 2016 and a communication in that regard was sent to the DAV College Management Committee for taking a decision. The Committee decided that the School be asked to re-submit the proposal of extension of the services of the petitioner separately along with details of awards conferred upon her. According to the counsel, a request was sent on May 20, 2016 by the petitioner for extension of her services.

4. It appears that the application of the petitioner was not considered by the Committee, which made the petitioner file a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 134/2017 in this Court. This Court vide order dated May 28, 2018, directed the respondent School to consider the representation and pass a speaking order. Accordingly, an order dated July 11th/13th, 2018 was passed by the School, which has been impugned by the petitioner in this petition.

5. According to Mr. Chauhan, the reasons given by the Committee in not extending the services of the petitioner is relatable to the conduct of the petitioner as a Teacher/In-charge before and even after retirement. According to him, the petitioner retired from the School from the post of Head Mistress, after serving with honesty and dedication for about 20 years. The case of the petitioner was recommended by the School for extension of services in terms of minutes of the LMC dated March 10, 2016. He stated, the case of the School that the petitioner had never represented for re-employment before 2018 is without any basis. That apart, it is his submission that, even the nominee of the Director was not called for the meeting, which rejected the case of the petitioner. The impugned order/minutes are denial of legitimate right of re-employment of the petitioner. That apart, the grounds, on which the extension/re-employment has been denied to the petitioner has come as a surprise to the petitioner as, at no point of time earlier, did the respondent School communicated any misconduct on the part of the petitioner. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Latha M. Palat vs. Director of Education & Anr., 205 (2013) DLT 685, wherein this Court has granted the benefits to a Teacher, who though granted re-employment for two years, the benefit thereof was withdrawn on the ground that the Teachers in the unaided School are not entitled to the benefit of re-employment and granted the benefit during the period, the petitioner therein was required to be re-employed.

6. O