Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, J.
Rambir Singh Malik - Appellant
Versus
Greenfields Public School - Respondent
W.P.(C) 11157 of 2020, CM Nos. 34803 of 2020 and 7738 of 2021
Decided On : 25-03-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks court intervention for re-employment. (Para 1) |
| 2. facts of the petitioner's appointment and retirement. (Para 2 , 4) |
| 3. contentions on the interpretation of rule 110(2). (Para 3 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. court considers entitlement for re-employment. (Para 11 , 12 , 19) |
| 5. importance of statutory provisions for continuity in education. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. court orders re-employment and back wages. (Para 20) |
JUDGMENT
V. Kameswar Rao, J. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:
"In light of the facts and circumstances set out hereinabove, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to:
i. Issue appropriate writ/order/directions in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 and 2 to act in accordance with and not in contravention of the Delhi School Education Act & Rules 1973;
ii. Issue appropriate writ/order/directions in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 to pass orders granting re-employment to the Petitioner in accordance with Rule 110(2) of the DELHI SCHOOL EDUCATION RULES 1973.
iii.Issue appropriate writ/order/directions in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 to act swiftly on the representation dated December 21, 2020 given by the Petitioner and further direct the Respondent No.1 to pass orders granting re-employment to the Petitioner forthwith.
iv. Issue appropriate writ/order/directions in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to pay the costs of this Petition to the Petitioners.
v. Pass such other order/s as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts of the present case."
2. Some of the facts as noted from the record are, the petitioner was appointed as T.G.T. (Geography), Social Science Department on July 15, 1988 in the respondent No.1/School. He has served the institution for 32 years before retiring on December 31, 2020. The respondent No.1/School is a private unaided recognized School.
3. It is the case of the petitioner and so contended by his counsel, Mr. Anmol Panwar that the petitioner gave several representations to the respondent No.1/School seeking re-employment as per Rule 110(2) of the DELHI SCHOOL EDUCATION RULES , 1973 (`Rules of 1973', for short) but received no response. Rule 110 of the Rules of 1973 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 for 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 previous approval of the Director:
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), every teacher, laboratory assistant, librarian, Principal or Vice-Principal employed in such school shall continue to hold office until he attains the age of 60 years: Provided that where a teacher, Principal or Vice Principal attains the age of superannuation on or after the 1st day of November of any year, such teacher, Principal or Vice Principal shall be re-employed upto the 30th day of April of the year immediately following.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2) where a teacher, Principal or Vice Principal has obtained National or State Award for rendering meritorious service as a teacher.
Principal or Vice Principal or where he has received both the National and Slate Awards as aforesaid, the period of service of such teacher. Principal or Vice Principal may be extended by such period as the Administrator may, by general or special order, specify in this be
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 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 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....
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.
The court emphasized that the applicability of government orders with retrospective effect and the re-appointment of superannuated individuals are within the executive domain and cannot be directed b....
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
