SHASHI KOHLI Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE intra court appeals impugn the separate but identical orders, both dated 29th April, 2011 of the same learned Single Judge dismissing WP(C) No. 4330/2010 and WP(C) No.2173/2010 respectively preferred by the appellants. Notice of these appeals was issued; the appeals were admitted to hearing; the appellant in LPA 414/2011 died during the pendency of this appeal and her legal heirs were substituted. The same counsel represent the appellants and the contesting respondents in both the appeals and common arguments have been addressed. We have as such taken up these appeals together for disposal.

(2.) THE appellants in both the appeals were employed as teacher in the respondent no.2 Delhi Public School, Mathura Road, New Delhi and on attaining the age of 60 years on 31st July, 2010 and 30th April, 2010 respectively, were retired from service. Their grievance was that though the notification dated 29th January, 2007 of the Directorate of Education of Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi allowed re-employment to all retiring teachers upto PGT level, till they attain the age of 62 years but they had not been granted the benefit of re-employment.

(3.) THE counsel for the appellants before us has contended that the documents produced by the respondent no.2 school before the learned Single Judge and on the basis whereof re-employment is stated to have been denied to the appellants, were not available to the appellants at the time of filing of the writ petitions. It is further argued that no opportunity was given to the appellants to show cause against the grounds on which re-employment has been denied to them, in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is further contended that only ACRs could have been seen while judging the suitability for re-employment and of the ACRs also, the ACRs containing adverse entries and not communicated to the appellants could not have formed the basis for denying re-employment. Attention is also invited to the communication dated 10th October, 2007 of the Society which has established the respondent no.2 school conveying the decision for re-employment upto to the age of 62 years and further providing that the same be treated notionally as extension of service. On the basis thereof it is argued that no such assessment could have been done.