MANJU Vs. DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent No. 2 is a private aided school recognised by the Directorate of Education (DOE) and is governed by the provisions of Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and the Rules framed thereunder.

(2.) There was one post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Sanskrit) lying vacant in respondent No. 2 school which was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate. The selection process for recruitment of a suitable candidate was held by respondent No. 2 school on 03.07.2008. The Selection Committee was comprised of the Chairman of respondent No. 2 school besides two nominees of Directorate of Education namely Sh. Marcel Ekka, A.D.E.(Exam) and Sh. O.P. Singh, D.E.O. (Zone 28) besides a subject expert Ms. Devyani Burman, Vice-Principle, S.K.V. Sr. Secondary School, Rajouri Garden Main, New Delhi and the Principle of respondent No. 2 school Mrs. Nandini Luthra.

(3.) Twelve candidates, all belonging to reserved category, had participated in the selection process held by respondent No. 2 school for filling up of one vacant post of TGT (Sanskrit) on 03.07.2008. The petitioner ranked third in order of merit in the selection process. However, since there was only one post of TGT (Sanskrit) which was to be filled by respondent No. 2 school, the respondent No. 2 school prepared a select panel of only one candidate namely Ms. Manju Munkhiya who ranked first in the selection process and kept the second candidate namely Ms. Geeta Singh in the wait list as she has ranked second in the selection process. The Minutes of the Selection Committee are Annexure 'A' at pages 13-16 of the Paper Book. The respondent No. 2 school gave an offer of appointment to the selected candidate who ranked first in the selection process but the said candidate refused the offer and did not join the service in respondent No. 2 school. The offer was then sent by respondent No. 2 to the candidate who ranked second and was kept in the wait list. Even the second wait list candidate refused the offer and did not join the service of respondent No. 2 school. The offer then went from respondent No. 2 school to the petitioner as she has ranked third in the selection process and consequent to the said offer given to her, she joined the service of respondent No. 2 school as TGT (Sanskrit) on 21.08.2008. Simultaneously, the respondent No. 2 school vide its communication dated 06.10.2008 informed the Directorate of Education also about the offer of appointment to the post of TGT (Sanskrit) given to the petitioner. This communication dated 06.10.2008 sent by respondent No. 2 school to the Directorate of Education is at page 18 of the Paper Book. It is pursuant to this communication sent by respondent No. 2 school to the Directorate of Education, the Directorate of Education informed the respondent No. 2 school vide its letter dated 17.03.2009 (which is at page 20 of the Paper Book) that the offer of appointment given to the petitioner was in violation of Rule 96 (2) of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 and, therefore, asked the respondent No. 2 school to discontinue the services of the petitioner with immediate effect and bear the burden of payment of her salary to the extent of 100% out of the management's share. Pursuant to the said communication dated 17.03.2009, received by respondent No. 2 school from the Directorate of Education, the services of the petitioner were dispensed with by respondent No. 2 school w.e.f. 18.03.2009. Aggrieved by her termination, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to withdraw its letter dated 17.03.2009 or in the alternative to quash the said order of respondent No. 1 dated 17.03.2009 and direct the respondents to reinstate her in service with all consequential benefits.