SUSHIL KUMARI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, inter alia, seeks issuance of appropriate writ or direction for appointment of the petitioners to the post of Assistant Teachers and quashing the communication dated 19th June, 2001 of respondent no.2 as well as 8th October, 2001 of respondent no.3. Petitioner no.1 was working in the respondent no.3/school as Additional Primary Teacher since 1992. The petitioner obtained the qualification of Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) and was appointed as Assistant Teacher on ad hoc basis from 1st August, 2000 to 31st October, 2000 by the respondent in the same school. Petitioner no.2 applied for appointment as Assistant Teacher pursuant to the advertisement issued by respondent no.3 calling for application for appointment to two regular posts of Assistant Teachers (one OBC and one General). Petitioners and others were called for interview. Thereafter a panel was prepared and respondent no.3 issued appointment letters dated 11th December, 2000 appointing petitioner no.1 against General Vacancy and petitioner no.2 against OBC vacancy on probation of two years to the post of Assistant Teacher. It seems that in the meanwhile, a Division Bench of this Court passed a judgment in case of Ataul Haque Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (CWP No.6798 and 6796/2000) reported in 2001 (5) DRJ 49 holding that persons possessing qualification of Nursery Teachers Training and B.Ed. were not competent to teach Class 3, 4 and 5 of the Primary classes.

(2.) Mr.Ashok Chhabra, learned counsel for the respondent/MCD has contended that respondent no.2/MCD granted approval to the said appointment of the petitioners on account of the judgment rendered by this Court in Ataul Haque's case (supra).

(3.) To my mind the reason given by the respondent is not legally tenable. The judgment of Ataul Haque's case (supra) was rendered on 9th February, 2001 whereas the petitioners were given appointment letters on 11th December, 2000. Therefore, the ratio of Ataul Haque's case (supra) would be applicable prospectively and not retrospectively. Even otherwise, my attention has been invited to Rule 98 (2), (3) and (4) of Delhi School Education Rules. The same is as under :-