DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL Vs. KETKI AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner No. 1 namely DPS, Vasant Kunj is an unaided recognised school. On 7.6.1994 an advertisement, issued by petitione school, was published in Hindustan Times, inviting applications from trained and experienced candidates for the posts of PGT/TGT and PRT grades etc. Various persons including respondent No.1 responded to the aforesaid advertisement. Respondent No.1 gave her application for the post of TGT. Interview was scheduled for 29.10.1994 and respondent No.1 alongwith other applicants appeared before Selection Committee on the aforesaid date. Selection Committee interviewed all the candidates who reported for interview. Petitioner school has produced the minutes of the Selection Committee meeting held on 12.11.1994, after the aforesaid interview, as per which 14 persons were selected for the appointments to the posts of Junior Teacher. In so far as respondent No.1 is concerned, it is mentioned in the minutes that she was selected to be appointed on the consolidated salary of Rs.2,500.00 per month against leave vacancy for one year. It may be mentioned that except respondent No.1, other candidates were recommended for appointment in graded pay scale as Junior Teacher Gr. V and one Mrs.Vinita Mehra as Junior Teacher Gr. IV in the pay scale of Rs. 1480-3200. Thus out of 14 Teachers recommended for appointments, 12 were recommended for appointment as Junior Teacher Gr.V in the pay scale of Rs. 1260-2500, 1 as Junior Teacher Gr. IV in the pay scale of Rs. 1480-3200 and respondent No.1 as Junior Teacher on consolidated salary of Rs.2500.00 per month against leave vacancy for one year. Respondent No. 1 was offered the post of Junior Teacher on the aforesaid terms which were accepted. Letter dated 26.11.1994 addressed to respondent No.1, inter alia, reads as under:

(2.) Respondent No. 1 joined the duties as Junior Teacher on the basis of aforesaid offer contained in latter dated 26.11.1994 as per which tenure of appointment on ad hoc post of respondent No.l was one year. Since respondent No.l joined on 29.11.1994, this tenure was to come to end on 28.11.1995. After the completion of one year period, respondent No.1 was relieved from her duties w.e.f. 29.11.1995. Respondent No.1 filed appeat against the aforesaid termination undersection 8 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 before Delhi School Tribunal which was registered as Appeal No.9/96. In this appeal, respondent No.1 submitted that when she was selected after the interview by the selection committee pursuant to open selection after advertisement to this effect issued by the petitioner school, respondent No.1 should have been treated as appointed on regular basis. The act on the part of petitioner school in giving adhoc appointment on consolidated salary basis amounted to victimisation and exploitation of weaker section of the society which is against the provisions contained in Delhi School Education Act and the Rules. It was further stated that the petitioners are recognised private school within the meaning of Section 2(r) & (t) of Delhi School Education Act 1973 and are subject to compliance with Sections 8 &10readwith Rules 98 & 101 in matters of all appointments and no appointment whether adhoc, temporary or part-time can be made outside these parameters. Vacancies were advertised under Rule 108, selection was made by Selection Committee under Rule 96, appointment was made by Appointing Authority under Rule 98. Thus she claimed that she was a direct recruit teacher and having served for the required period she was an 'existing employee' under section 2(i) of the Act. Accordingly, it was contended that impugned order terminating services of the respondent No.1 amounted to imposition of major penalty on the respondent No.1 without affording thearing or reasonable hearing to explain her position and therefore it was in violation of Rule 118 readwith 120 of Delhi School Education Rules.

(3.) The petitioner school contested the aforesaid petition submitting that 'since respondent No.1 was appointed against leave vacancy for a limited period of one year on a consolidated salary of Rs.2,500.00 per month, her disengagement after the expiry of one year, which was automatic by afflux of time, did not amount to dismissal or removal or reduction in rank and therefore appeal filed by the respondent No.l was not maintainable.