Victoria Girls Senior Secondary School, Delhi vs Director of Education

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, J.
Victoria Girls Senior Secondary School, Delhi - Appellant
Versus
Director of Education - Respondent
W.P.(C) 6712 of 2020, CM Appls. 23321 of 2020, 34429 of 2020, 7444 of 2021 and 7445 of 2021
Decided On : 31-05-2021

Important Points

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 this policy.

Subject

Employment Law - Educational Institutions

Act Referred

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.14, Art.16, Art.226, Art.30
DELHI SCHOOL EDUCATION RULES: R.110

Headnote

(A) Delhi School Education Act, 1973 - Rule 110 - Policy decision to withdraw re-employment of retired teachers in government and aided schools challenged as ultra vires and unconstitutional - Court found the decision reasonable based on filled vacancies through direct recruitment. (Paras 23, 34, 42)

(B) Vested rights - Applicants claimed vested rights for continued employment till age 62 based on prior approvals for re-employment - Court held that policy withdrawal does not infringe fundamental rights; conditions and policies for re-employment may be modified legitimately. (Paras 38, 41)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, educators of a minority school, sought to challenge a government order terminating their re-employment after retirement based on a policy change. (Paras 1-3, 5)

Findings of Court:
Court upheld the government's decision to withdraw re-employment for public interest; found no vested rights violated as re-employment was contingent on policy which could be amended. (Paras 36-42)

Issues: Whether the withdrawal was unconstitutional and whether it violated the petitioners' claimed vested rights. (Paras 23, 25)

Ratio Decidendi: The policy to withdraw re-employment was determined to be within the government's authority, citing public interest and filling vacancies through direct recruitment. A vested right was not recognized based on the nature of re-employment. (Paras 24-30, 35-39)

Result: Petition dismissed; impugned order upheld.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J.

CM. Nos. 7444/2021 & 7445/2021

These two applications have been filed by the respondents seeking condonation of 20 days delay in filing the counter-affidavit to the petition.

For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 20 days is condoned. Counter-affidavit is taken on record.

Applications stand disposed of.

W.P.(C) 6712/2020

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:

"In view of the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, direction or order quashing the impugned order dated 10.09.2020 issued by Respondent No.1 as ultra vires and unconstitutional.

(b) Allow the Petitioners No. 2 to 4 to continue in reemployment till they attain the age of 62 years as approved by the Respondent No. 1.

2. In substance, the challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated September 10, 2020 bearing No/PS/DE/2020/(`impugned order', for short) issued by the Office of Director of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi/respondent No.1. The impugned order reads as under:

"OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

OLD SECRETARIAT, DELHI-110054

No/Ps/DE/2020/

ORDER

Dated:10.09.2020

SUBJECT: DISCONTINUING THE PROVISION OF RE-EMPLOYMENT IN R/O TEACHERS/VICE PRINCIPALS/PRINCIPALS

Whereas the system for Re-employment of Teachers was notified and later extended to Vice Principals and Principals in view of the large number of vacancies which existed at that time in the Directorate of Education.

And Whereas the Department has recently been able to fill a large number of vacant posts through Direct Recruitments.

As such the system of Re-Employment of Teachers/Vice Principals/Principals is no longer required.

Now, therefore, the provision of Re-Employment of Teachers/Vice Principals/Principals is discontinued with immediate effect. Accordingly, all types of Re-employment granted for the session 2020-21 in govt. and govt. aided schools shall cease to be in force with immediate effect and no re-employment shall be granted to the Teachers/Vice Principals/principals in govt. and govt. aided schools, henceforth.

UDIT PRAKASH RAI

DIRECTOR (EDUCATION)

xxx xxxx"

3. The petitioner No.1 herein is a senior secondary school established in the year 1868 at Delhi for the education of Christian minorities and it was affiliated to Central Board of Secondary Education in 1966. The petitioner No.1 school was granted minority status on September 03, 2008. The petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4 are teachers working with the petitioner No.1 school who have been re-employed after attaining the age the superannuation in terms of Rule 110 of the DELHI SCHOOL EDUCATION RULES , 1973 (`DSE Rules', for short). Relevant portion of Rule 110 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:

....

xxx xxx xxx "

4. It is the case of the petitioners and as contended by Mr. Romy Chacko, learned counsel for the petitioners that vide t