DINESH SINGH Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is the claim of the petitioner that he was appointed as Driver in the respondent school w.e.f. 16.1.1998 on regular basis. His allegation in the present petition is that on 14.5.1999 he was given a letter dated 19.4.1999 staling that the same is his promotion letter. After he received the same, he came to know that it was his termination w.e.f. 15.5.1999. He was not allowed to resume duties w.e.f. 15.5.1999. He sent representation dated 18.5.1999. As no heed was paid by the respondent, petitioner filed the instant petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the time of appointment, petitioner was told that his services will be regularised after 3 months and the nature of job was permanent. It is further submitted that petitioner was not being given benefits and allowances which he is entitled to as per Rule 125 ofthe Delhi Education Rules and respondents were violating provisions of S. 15 of the Delhi School Education Act as control of service was not given to the petitioner. It was further submitted that since petitioner had completed 240 days of service without any break his services could not be terminated in this manner.

(2.) In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that the petitioher was not an employee of school. It is the Managing Board of the school which is the appointing authority and the Managing Board never appointed the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner was infact employed by Patel Education Society (now called Springdales Education Society). It is this society which manages some buses and it had appointed petitioner on adhoc basis for a period of one year which appointment was accepted by, the petitioner. The period of one years was extended by the society vide letter dated 19.4.1999 upto 15.5.1999 and the services of the petitioner came to an end automatically byafflux of time of 15.5.1999. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner, these contentions are disputed.

(3.) Admittedly, there is no document filed by the petitioner on the basis of which he could claim that he was the employee of the respondent school. In fact petitioner has annexed Annexure-B as per which bus No. DEP 2481 which he was driving belongs to Patel Education Society. Whether the petitioner was the employees of the society or the school would be a disputed question of fact which can be decided only after taking evidence. If the petitioner was the employee of the society, he was not governed by the Delhi School Education Act and Rules and in such a case his remedy would be to raise industrial dispute which in alternate efficacious remedy. Even if the claim of the petitioner is accepted that he was the employee of the school then also his remedy is to file appeal against the termination before the Delhi School Tribunal under Section 8 of the Delhi School Education Act as it is alleged that termination is by way of punishment. In either case writ petition is not maintainable and therefore the same is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to seek remedy before the appropriate forum provided under the law.