HIGH COURT OF DELHI CLEARED THAT TGT RECRUITMENT PROCESS IS GOVERNED BY NCTE NOTIFICATION DATED 29 JULY 2011 i.e TET is mandatory for TGT teachers also, But teachers appointed prior this notification not affected i.e TET not required for TGT Post
348/2015, 353/2015, 355/2015 & 356/2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %
Judgment Reserved on: October 14, 2015
Judgment Delivered on: October
29, 2015
+
LPA 223/2015
ARMY WELFARE EDUCATION SOCIETY & ANR
..... Appellant
Represented by:
Mr. R. Bala Subramani
an, Advocate
with Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate
versus
MANJU NAUTIYAL & ANR
..... Respondents
Represented by:
Mr.M.A.Niyazi, Advocate with
Ms.Anamika Ghai, Advocate for
R - 1
Mr.Gautam Narayan, Additional Standing Counsel (Civil) for
R 2 LPA 225/2015
ARMY WELFARE EDUCATION
SOCIETY & ANR
..... Appellant
s
Represented by:
Mr.R.Bala Subramanian, Advocate
with
Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate
versus
SHAYAM DUTT & ANR
..... Respondent
Represented by:
Mr.M.A.Niyazi, Advocate with
Ms.Anamika Ghai, Advocate for R
-
1 Mr.Gautam Narayan, Additional
Standing Counsel (Civil) for R
-
2 LPA 227/2015
ARMY WELFARE EDUCATION
SOCIETY & ANR
..... Appellants
Represented by:
Mr.R.Bala Subramanian, Advocate
LPA 223/2015, 225/2015, 227/2015, 314/2015, 347/2015,
348/2015, 353/2015, 355/2015 & 356/2015
with Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate versus
ANITA SOHARU GULERIA & ANR
..... Respondent
Represented by:
Mr.M.A.Niyazi, Advocate with
Ms.Anamika Ghai, Advocate for R
- 1 Mr.Gautam Narayan, Additional
Standing Counsel (Civil) for R
-
2 LPA 314/2015
ARMY WELFARE EDUCATION
SOCIETY & ANR
..... Appellant
s
Represented by:
Mr.R.Bala Subramanian, Advocate
with
Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate
versus
RENU BARROT & ORS
..... Respondent
s
Represented by:
Mr.M.A.Niyazi, Advocate with
Ms.Anamika Ghai, Advocate for R
-
1
Mr.Gautam Narayan,
Additional
Standing Counsel (Civil) for R
-
2
LPA 347/2015
ARMY WELFARE EDUCATION
SOCIETY & ANR
..... Appellant
s
Represented by:
Mr.R.Bala Subramanian, Advocate
with
Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate
versus
RAVI KUMAR & ANR
..... Respon
dent
s
Represented by:
Mr.M.A.Niyazi, Advocate with
Ms.Anamika Ghai, Advocate for R
-
1
Mr.Gautam Narayan, Additional
Standing Counsel (Civil) for R
-
2
LPA 223/2015, 225/2015, 227/2015, 314/2015, 347/2015,
348/2015, 353/2015, 355/2015 & 356/2015
Page
3
of
22
LPA 348/2015
ARMY WELFARE EDUCATION
SOCIETY & ANR
..... Appellant
s
Represented by:
Mr.R.Bala Su
bramanian, Advocate
with
Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate
versus
VIKRAM SINGH & ANR
..... Respondent
s
Represented by:
Mr.M.A.Niyazi, Advocate with
Ms.Anamika Ghai, Advocate for R
-
1
Mr.Gautam Narayan, Additional
Standing Counsel (Civil) for R
-
2
LPA 353/2015
ARMY WELFARE EDUCATION
SOCIETY & ANR
..... Appellant
s
Represented by:
Mr.R.Bala Subramanian, Advocate
with
Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate
versus
SHATRUGHAN THAKUR & ANR
..... Respondents
Represented by:
Mr.M.A.Niyazi, Advocate with Ms.Anamika Ghai, Advocate for R
-
1Mr.Gautam Narayan, Additional Standing Counsel (Civil) for R
-
2LPA 355/2015ARMY WELFARE EDUCATION
SOCIETY & ANR..... Appellants
Represented by:
Mr.R.Bala Subramanian, Advocate with
Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate versus
SHEEJA BENOY & ANR
..... Respondents
LPA 223/2015, 225/2015, 227/2015, 314/2015, 347/2015, 348/2015, 353/2015, 355/2015 & 356/2015
Represented by:
Mr.M.A.Niyazi, Advocate with Ms.Anamika Ghai, Advocate for R
-1Mr.Gautam Narayan, Additional Standing Counsel (Civil) for R
-
2LPA 356/2015ARMY WELFARE EDUCATION SOCIETY & ANR
..... Appellant
Represented by:
Mr.R.Bala Subramanian, Advocate
with Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate
versus
BIR SINGH & ANR
..... Respondents
Represented by:
Mr.M.A.Niyazi, Advocate with
Ms.Anamika Ghai, Advocate for R-
1Mr.Gautam Narayan, Additional Standing Counsel (Civil) for R
-
2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
, J.
1.
LPA No.223/2015, LPA No.225/2015 and LPA No.227/2015, lay a
challenge to a common judgment and order da
ted February 25, 2015,
allowing W.P.(C) No.1944/2014, W.P.(C) No.2112/2014 and W.P.(C) No.1845/2014 filed by Manju Nautiyal, Shayam Dutt and Anita Soharu Guleria respectively : the contesting respondent No.1 in the three appeals.
LPA No.314/2015 lays a challenge to a judgment and order dated April 27, 2015 allowing W.P.(C) No.6180/2013 filed by Renu Barrot : the contesting respondent No.1 in the said appeal. LPA No.347/2015, LPA No.348/2015, LPA No.353/2015, LPA No.355/2015 and LPA No.356/2015 lay a challenge to a common judgment and order dated April 29, 2015 allowing LPA 223/2015, 225/2015, 227/2015, 314/2015, 347/2015, 348/2015, 353/2015, 355/2015 & 356/2015 exploited. In spite of vacant posts being available contract appointment is
being resorted to and this results in deterioration in the quality of education being imparted in Delhi.
15. It ill lies in the mouth of the appellant to argue that if all the
respondents are regularized by being made permanent the quality of
education in the two schools established by appellant No.1 would
deteriorate. If such respondents who are teachers are found good teachers to
teach as
contract employees we see no deterioration taking place if they are
made permanent. Of course, the issue of the necessary educational
qualifications is a different matter and we would deal with the same while
deciding individual appeals.
16.To put the law in its correct perspective we hold that recognized
private schools in Delhi cannot resort to temporary, tenure or contractual
appointments save and except where a vacancy is available for a limited
duration. To give some examples. A teacher has proceeded
on child care leave for a period of one year. The lien being retained to the post, a short term vacancy for one year ensues and can be filled up for said period. A
teacher, on being unwell, applies for and is sanctioned medical leave for
three months. The lien being retained to the post, a short term vacancy for
three months ensues and can be filled up for said period. A teacher may
suddenly resign. The process to fill up the vacancy is likely to consume say
6 months. Teaching would suffer if no teacher is available immediately. It
would be a situation of a short term vacancy pending regular selection and it
would be permissible to recruit a teacher without following the process of
selection and limiting the tenure till when a regular teacher is appointed.
But where a vacancy exists it would be a fraud on the statute to resort to
LPA 223/2015, 225/2015, 227/2015, 314/2015, 347/2015, 348/2015, 353/2015, 355/2015 & 356/2015 short term tenure appointment and that too endlessly.
17.We now turn to individual cases. We transpose ourselves back to paragraph 2 of our opinion, where we have noted the different tenures of appointment of the nine respondents in the nine captioned appeals.
18.Manju Nautiyal has a post graduate degree in Botany as well as a
Bachelor’s Degree in Education. Appointed as a Primary Teacher on
September 01, 2009 she worked as a Primary Teacher till March 31, 2010
and after a break of one year, three months and seven days was appointed as
a Trained Graduate Teacher on July 08, 2011 and with short breaks in
service of less than 30 days she continued to be employed till March 26,
2014. Her appointment at every stage was preceded by a selection process
being resorted to. Qua her it is not the case that there was no regular
vacancy. The defence is that she does not possess a two years’ diploma in
Elementary Education, a mandatory requirement as per the Rules. When
questioned as to why was she appointed on a tenure if she was not qualified,
learned counsel for the appellant had no answer.
We find that the requirement of two year diploma in Elementary Education was prescribed as per a notification dated July 29, 2011. Her appointment as a TGT preceded
said notification. We therefore concur with the reasoning of the learned
Single Judge that in the peculiar facts and circumstances concerning Manju
Nautiyal she would be entitled to be made permanent.
19.Right to Shayam Dutt is questioned on the ground that there was no
permanent post of either Assistant Estate Supervisor or Estate Supervisor.
We find that his appointment was preceded by a selection undisputedly one
Mr.Nayyar had worked as an Estate Supervisor from 1995 to the year 2000
and thereafter one Mr.Shekhawat till the year 2003. Shayam Dutt was
LPA 223/2015, 225/2015, 227/2015, 314/2015, 347/2015, 348/2015, 353/2015, 355/2015 & 356/2015 appointed as an Assistant Estate Supervisor on December 01, 2009 and with
short breaks tenure was extended till May 23, 2011, but in between, on
November 01, 2010 the post was designated as Estate Supervisor and he was re
-appointed with breaks of between 7 and 10 days till March 31, 2014.
Facts belie the defence of the appellant that they do not require on
permanent basis an Estate Supervisor and thus we hold against the appellant
and in favour of Shayam Dutt.
20.Anita Soharu Guleria’s claim was opposed on she not clearing a
Teacher’s Eligibility Test notified as per NCTE notification dated July 02,
2011. That she possesses the requisite educational qualifications was
conceded to. We find that Anita Soharu Guleria was appointed as a TGT
way back on July 14, 2007 and with a short tenure as a primary teacher in
the year 2009 she was once again taken back as a TGT and continues to
work as a TGT. The NCTE notification does not have any retrospective
operation and thus we hold in favour of Anita Soharu Guleria.
21.Concerning Renu Barrot the plea was that she was overage. The plea
overlooks that when she was appointed as a TGT on August 02,
2010 she was 39 years of age. The maximum age for female teachers is 40 years.
The defence qua her is also rejected.
22.Vikram Singh and Shatrughan Thakur were appointed as Drivers.
The former in the year 2005 and the latter in the year 2006. The two a
re ExServicemen and had a past experience of driving. It may be true that they do
not possess the matriculation degree, but keeping in view the fact that the
educational degree is otherwise having no concern with the duties to be
performed by the two, we hold that the learned Single Judge has correctly
decided in their favour by directing their services to be regularized.
LPA 223/2015, 225/2015, 227/2015, 314/2015, 347/2015, 348/2015, 353/2015, 355/2015 & 23.Ravi Kumar was appointed as a Computer Laboratory
Helper/Attendant on May 14, 2013 and his services were continued till
September 30,2015. As per the appellant there is no sanctioned post of a
Computer Laboratory Helper/Attendant. Ravi Kumar has not given any
proof of a sanctioned post of a Computer Laboratory Helper/Attendant and
keeping this in mind as also the fact that he worked on contract for only two
years and when he was appointed the process of selection was not followed.
We hold against him and in favour of the appellants.
24.As regards Sheeja Benoy we find that she has continued to work as a
Nursing Assistant since August 08, 2008. The defence qua her is that there
is no sanctioned post of a Nursing Assistant, but since the school where she
was employed and continues to be employed has a sick room we hold that
the nature of job performed by her requires permanency and thus
repel the challenge to the relief granted to her by the learned Single Judge.
25.Bir Singh was appointed as a LDC Account Clerk in October, 2005
and was reengaged with artificial breaks till November, 2015. He had a past
experience of working as a Clerk in the Indian Army of 17 years. He may
not be qualified as per the Recruitment Rules but since the appellant
themselves waived said requirement when they gave him appointment on
contract in October, 2005 and continued with the same for 10 years we are
of the opinion that it has to be held that the appellant has deemed waived the
requirement of educational qualification qua Bir Singh. It is not the case of
the appellants that a permanent post of an Account Clerk does not exist.
26.Thus, LPAs No.223/2015, 225/2015, 227/2015, 314/2015, 348/2015,
353/2015, 355/2015 and 356/2015 are dismissed. LPA No.347/2015 is
allowed. Writ petition filed by Ravi Kumar is dismissed and impugned
LPA 223/2015, 225/2015, 227/2015, 314/2015, 347/2015, 348/2015, 353/2015, 355/2015 & 356/2015
order dated April 29, 2015 in so far it has allowed the writ petition filed by
Ravi Kumar is set aside.
27.Concerning directions issued by the learned Single Judge that the
Director of Education should look into the working of the two schools
established by the first appellant, we agree with the same for the reason we
find that large number of employees of the two Army Public Schools are in
litigation with their Managing Committee and we find that the appellants are
indiscriminately resorting to contract appointments notwithstanding
existence of permanent posts. In some cases like that of Sheeja Benoy,
notwithstanding the nature of the work being perennial the appellants are not
sanctioning a permanent post. The Director of Education would look into
the strength of students and keeping in view the applicable norms
determined the number of posts of teachers in various categories to be
sanctioned. The Director of Education would also look into repeated tenure
appointments made and extended for periods between 5 to 10 years. We
would expect the visit by the Director of Education to be frien
dly and intended to guide the appellants through the allays of the law and not to find
false to take action against the management. We would also hope and
expect that the appellants would work with transparency and as per law.
28.Parties shall bear their own costs all throughout.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
OCTOBER
29,
2015
sponsored links:
ख़बरें अब तक - 72825 प्रशिक्षु शिक्षकों की भर्ती - Today's Headlines
- शीघ्र पतन से कैसे पाये छुटकारा , पहली बार सेक्स करने के बाद क्या सोचती हैं महिलाएं , ओरल सेक्स : रिलेशनशिप और जोश-ए-जवानी - Love , Sex , Life , Relationship
- फाइलें अव्यवस्थित देख चढ़ा एडी का पारा , बीएसए ने शिक्षक नेता को हड़काया : 72825 प्रशिक्षु शिक्षकों की भर्ती Latest News
- टीईटी मोर्चा , बेसिक शिक्षा मंत्री श्री अहमद हसन वार्ता का सारभूत तत्व : Ganesh Dixit : 72825 प्रशिक्षु शिक्षकों की भर्ती Latest News
- शिक्षामित्रों के लिए ख़ुशख़बरी - 16 हज़ार रिक्त पदों पर भर्ती शीघ्र की जाएगी : 72825 प्रशिक्षु शिक्षकों की भर्ती Latest News
348/2015, 353/2015, 355/2015 & 356/2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %
Judgment Reserved on: October 14, 2015
Judgment Delivered on: October
29, 2015
+
LPA 223/2015
ARMY WELFARE EDUCATION SOCIETY & ANR
..... Appellant
Represented by:
Mr. R. Bala Subramani
an, Advocate
with Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate
versus
MANJU NAUTIYAL & ANR
..... Respondents
Represented by:
Mr.M.A.Niyazi, Advocate with
Ms.Anamika Ghai, Advocate for
R - 1
Mr.Gautam Narayan, Additional Standing Counsel (Civil) for
R 2 LPA 225/2015
ARMY WELFARE EDUCATION
SOCIETY & ANR
..... Appellant
s
Represented by:
Mr.R.Bala Subramanian, Advocate
with
Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate
versus
SHAYAM DUTT & ANR
..... Respondent
Represented by:
Mr.M.A.Niyazi, Advocate with
Ms.Anamika Ghai, Advocate for R
-
1 Mr.Gautam Narayan, Additional
Standing Counsel (Civil) for R
-
2 LPA 227/2015
ARMY WELFARE EDUCATION
SOCIETY & ANR
..... Appellants
Represented by:
Mr.R.Bala Subramanian, Advocate
LPA 223/2015, 225/2015, 227/2015, 314/2015, 347/2015,
348/2015, 353/2015, 355/2015 & 356/2015
with Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate versus
ANITA SOHARU GULERIA & ANR
..... Respondent
Represented by:
Mr.M.A.Niyazi, Advocate with
Ms.Anamika Ghai, Advocate for R
- 1 Mr.Gautam Narayan, Additional
Standing Counsel (Civil) for R
-
2 LPA 314/2015
ARMY WELFARE EDUCATION
SOCIETY & ANR
..... Appellant
s
Represented by:
Mr.R.Bala Subramanian, Advocate
with
Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate
versus
RENU BARROT & ORS
..... Respondent
s
Represented by:
Mr.M.A.Niyazi, Advocate with
Ms.Anamika Ghai, Advocate for R
-
1
Mr.Gautam Narayan,
Additional
Standing Counsel (Civil) for R
-
2
LPA 347/2015
ARMY WELFARE EDUCATION
SOCIETY & ANR
..... Appellant
s
Represented by:
Mr.R.Bala Subramanian, Advocate
with
Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate
versus
RAVI KUMAR & ANR
..... Respon
dent
s
Represented by:
Mr.M.A.Niyazi, Advocate with
Ms.Anamika Ghai, Advocate for R
-
1
Mr.Gautam Narayan, Additional
Standing Counsel (Civil) for R
-
2
LPA 223/2015, 225/2015, 227/2015, 314/2015, 347/2015,
348/2015, 353/2015, 355/2015 & 356/2015
Page
3
of
22
LPA 348/2015
ARMY WELFARE EDUCATION
SOCIETY & ANR
..... Appellant
s
Represented by:
Mr.R.Bala Su
bramanian, Advocate
with
Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate
versus
VIKRAM SINGH & ANR
..... Respondent
s
Represented by:
Mr.M.A.Niyazi, Advocate with
Ms.Anamika Ghai, Advocate for R
-
1
Mr.Gautam Narayan, Additional
Standing Counsel (Civil) for R
-
2
LPA 353/2015
ARMY WELFARE EDUCATION
SOCIETY & ANR
..... Appellant
s
Represented by:
Mr.R.Bala Subramanian, Advocate
with
Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate
versus
SHATRUGHAN THAKUR & ANR
..... Respondents
Represented by:
Mr.M.A.Niyazi, Advocate with Ms.Anamika Ghai, Advocate for R
-
1Mr.Gautam Narayan, Additional Standing Counsel (Civil) for R
-
2LPA 355/2015ARMY WELFARE EDUCATION
SOCIETY & ANR..... Appellants
Represented by:
Mr.R.Bala Subramanian, Advocate with
Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate versus
SHEEJA BENOY & ANR
..... Respondents
LPA 223/2015, 225/2015, 227/2015, 314/2015, 347/2015, 348/2015, 353/2015, 355/2015 & 356/2015
Represented by:
Mr.M.A.Niyazi, Advocate with Ms.Anamika Ghai, Advocate for R
-1Mr.Gautam Narayan, Additional Standing Counsel (Civil) for R
-
2LPA 356/2015ARMY WELFARE EDUCATION SOCIETY & ANR
..... Appellant
Represented by:
Mr.R.Bala Subramanian, Advocate
with Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate
versus
BIR SINGH & ANR
..... Respondents
Represented by:
Mr.M.A.Niyazi, Advocate with
Ms.Anamika Ghai, Advocate for R-
1Mr.Gautam Narayan, Additional Standing Counsel (Civil) for R
-
2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
, J.
1.
LPA No.223/2015, LPA No.225/2015 and LPA No.227/2015, lay a
challenge to a common judgment and order da
ted February 25, 2015,
allowing W.P.(C) No.1944/2014, W.P.(C) No.2112/2014 and W.P.(C) No.1845/2014 filed by Manju Nautiyal, Shayam Dutt and Anita Soharu Guleria respectively : the contesting respondent No.1 in the three appeals.
LPA No.314/2015 lays a challenge to a judgment and order dated April 27, 2015 allowing W.P.(C) No.6180/2013 filed by Renu Barrot : the contesting respondent No.1 in the said appeal. LPA No.347/2015, LPA No.348/2015, LPA No.353/2015, LPA No.355/2015 and LPA No.356/2015 lay a challenge to a common judgment and order dated April 29, 2015 allowing LPA 223/2015, 225/2015, 227/2015, 314/2015, 347/2015, 348/2015, 353/2015, 355/2015 & 356/2015 exploited. In spite of vacant posts being available contract appointment is
being resorted to and this results in deterioration in the quality of education being imparted in Delhi.
15. It ill lies in the mouth of the appellant to argue that if all the
respondents are regularized by being made permanent the quality of
education in the two schools established by appellant No.1 would
deteriorate. If such respondents who are teachers are found good teachers to
teach as
contract employees we see no deterioration taking place if they are
made permanent. Of course, the issue of the necessary educational
qualifications is a different matter and we would deal with the same while
deciding individual appeals.
16.To put the law in its correct perspective we hold that recognized
private schools in Delhi cannot resort to temporary, tenure or contractual
appointments save and except where a vacancy is available for a limited
duration. To give some examples. A teacher has proceeded
on child care leave for a period of one year. The lien being retained to the post, a short term vacancy for one year ensues and can be filled up for said period. A
teacher, on being unwell, applies for and is sanctioned medical leave for
three months. The lien being retained to the post, a short term vacancy for
three months ensues and can be filled up for said period. A teacher may
suddenly resign. The process to fill up the vacancy is likely to consume say
6 months. Teaching would suffer if no teacher is available immediately. It
would be a situation of a short term vacancy pending regular selection and it
would be permissible to recruit a teacher without following the process of
selection and limiting the tenure till when a regular teacher is appointed.
But where a vacancy exists it would be a fraud on the statute to resort to
LPA 223/2015, 225/2015, 227/2015, 314/2015, 347/2015, 348/2015, 353/2015, 355/2015 & 356/2015 short term tenure appointment and that too endlessly.
17.We now turn to individual cases. We transpose ourselves back to paragraph 2 of our opinion, where we have noted the different tenures of appointment of the nine respondents in the nine captioned appeals.
18.Manju Nautiyal has a post graduate degree in Botany as well as a
Bachelor’s Degree in Education. Appointed as a Primary Teacher on
September 01, 2009 she worked as a Primary Teacher till March 31, 2010
and after a break of one year, three months and seven days was appointed as
a Trained Graduate Teacher on July 08, 2011 and with short breaks in
service of less than 30 days she continued to be employed till March 26,
2014. Her appointment at every stage was preceded by a selection process
being resorted to. Qua her it is not the case that there was no regular
vacancy. The defence is that she does not possess a two years’ diploma in
Elementary Education, a mandatory requirement as per the Rules. When
questioned as to why was she appointed on a tenure if she was not qualified,
learned counsel for the appellant had no answer.
We find that the requirement of two year diploma in Elementary Education was prescribed as per a notification dated July 29, 2011. Her appointment as a TGT preceded
said notification. We therefore concur with the reasoning of the learned
Single Judge that in the peculiar facts and circumstances concerning Manju
Nautiyal she would be entitled to be made permanent.
19.Right to Shayam Dutt is questioned on the ground that there was no
permanent post of either Assistant Estate Supervisor or Estate Supervisor.
We find that his appointment was preceded by a selection undisputedly one
Mr.Nayyar had worked as an Estate Supervisor from 1995 to the year 2000
and thereafter one Mr.Shekhawat till the year 2003. Shayam Dutt was
LPA 223/2015, 225/2015, 227/2015, 314/2015, 347/2015, 348/2015, 353/2015, 355/2015 & 356/2015 appointed as an Assistant Estate Supervisor on December 01, 2009 and with
short breaks tenure was extended till May 23, 2011, but in between, on
November 01, 2010 the post was designated as Estate Supervisor and he was re
-appointed with breaks of between 7 and 10 days till March 31, 2014.
Facts belie the defence of the appellant that they do not require on
permanent basis an Estate Supervisor and thus we hold against the appellant
and in favour of Shayam Dutt.
20.Anita Soharu Guleria’s claim was opposed on she not clearing a
Teacher’s Eligibility Test notified as per NCTE notification dated July 02,
2011. That she possesses the requisite educational qualifications was
conceded to. We find that Anita Soharu Guleria was appointed as a TGT
way back on July 14, 2007 and with a short tenure as a primary teacher in
the year 2009 she was once again taken back as a TGT and continues to
work as a TGT. The NCTE notification does not have any retrospective
operation and thus we hold in favour of Anita Soharu Guleria.
21.Concerning Renu Barrot the plea was that she was overage. The plea
overlooks that when she was appointed as a TGT on August 02,
2010 she was 39 years of age. The maximum age for female teachers is 40 years.
The defence qua her is also rejected.
22.Vikram Singh and Shatrughan Thakur were appointed as Drivers.
The former in the year 2005 and the latter in the year 2006. The two a
re ExServicemen and had a past experience of driving. It may be true that they do
not possess the matriculation degree, but keeping in view the fact that the
educational degree is otherwise having no concern with the duties to be
performed by the two, we hold that the learned Single Judge has correctly
decided in their favour by directing their services to be regularized.
LPA 223/2015, 225/2015, 227/2015, 314/2015, 347/2015, 348/2015, 353/2015, 355/2015 & 23.Ravi Kumar was appointed as a Computer Laboratory
Helper/Attendant on May 14, 2013 and his services were continued till
September 30,2015. As per the appellant there is no sanctioned post of a
Computer Laboratory Helper/Attendant. Ravi Kumar has not given any
proof of a sanctioned post of a Computer Laboratory Helper/Attendant and
keeping this in mind as also the fact that he worked on contract for only two
years and when he was appointed the process of selection was not followed.
We hold against him and in favour of the appellants.
24.As regards Sheeja Benoy we find that she has continued to work as a
Nursing Assistant since August 08, 2008. The defence qua her is that there
is no sanctioned post of a Nursing Assistant, but since the school where she
was employed and continues to be employed has a sick room we hold that
the nature of job performed by her requires permanency and thus
repel the challenge to the relief granted to her by the learned Single Judge.
25.Bir Singh was appointed as a LDC Account Clerk in October, 2005
and was reengaged with artificial breaks till November, 2015. He had a past
experience of working as a Clerk in the Indian Army of 17 years. He may
not be qualified as per the Recruitment Rules but since the appellant
themselves waived said requirement when they gave him appointment on
contract in October, 2005 and continued with the same for 10 years we are
of the opinion that it has to be held that the appellant has deemed waived the
requirement of educational qualification qua Bir Singh. It is not the case of
the appellants that a permanent post of an Account Clerk does not exist.
26.Thus, LPAs No.223/2015, 225/2015, 227/2015, 314/2015, 348/2015,
353/2015, 355/2015 and 356/2015 are dismissed. LPA No.347/2015 is
allowed. Writ petition filed by Ravi Kumar is dismissed and impugned
LPA 223/2015, 225/2015, 227/2015, 314/2015, 347/2015, 348/2015, 353/2015, 355/2015 & 356/2015
order dated April 29, 2015 in so far it has allowed the writ petition filed by
Ravi Kumar is set aside.
27.Concerning directions issued by the learned Single Judge that the
Director of Education should look into the working of the two schools
established by the first appellant, we agree with the same for the reason we
find that large number of employees of the two Army Public Schools are in
litigation with their Managing Committee and we find that the appellants are
indiscriminately resorting to contract appointments notwithstanding
existence of permanent posts. In some cases like that of Sheeja Benoy,
notwithstanding the nature of the work being perennial the appellants are not
sanctioning a permanent post. The Director of Education would look into
the strength of students and keeping in view the applicable norms
determined the number of posts of teachers in various categories to be
sanctioned. The Director of Education would also look into repeated tenure
appointments made and extended for periods between 5 to 10 years. We
would expect the visit by the Director of Education to be frien
dly and intended to guide the appellants through the allays of the law and not to find
false to take action against the management. We would also hope and
expect that the appellants would work with transparency and as per law.
28.Parties shall bear their own costs all throughout.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
OCTOBER
29,
2015
sponsored links:
ख़बरें अब तक - 72825 प्रशिक्षु शिक्षकों की भर्ती - Today's Headlines
