LAWS(DLH)-2013-2-482

TABITA CHAND Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION & ORS

Decided On February 26, 2013
Tabita Chand Appellant
V/S
Director Of Education And Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner who was recommended to be appointed as a Principal by the Managing Committee of the respondent/school, M/s. B.M.Gange, Girls Senior Secondary School, and which school is represented by respondents No. 2 and 3.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was recommended to be appointed as the Principal by the Managing Committee on 1.7.2008. By the said 'meeting, the Managing Committee appointed the petitioner subject to approval of the Director of Education to the appointment of the petitioner, and therefore the approval of the Director of Education was sought. The Director of Education vide letter No. 2582/VII dated 15.7.2008 refused to grant approval to the name of the petitioner for being appointed as Principal of the school. The petitioner contends that Director of Education has no role to play in giving approval because as per proviso to Rule 98 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 with respect to a minority aided school, no prior permission is required of the Director of Education. I may only note that the Director of Education refused approval vide letter dated 15.7.2008 on the ground that the petitioner was not the senior most PGT entitled to be appointed as a principal of the school.

(3.) On behalf of the respondent/school a stand is taken up that the petitioner was appointed only as an officiating Principal, however, after receiving the refusal of the Director of Education, one Mrs. M.M.Philip who is the respondent No.4 in this petition was appointed as an officiating Principal subject to approval being obtained of the Director of Education. In this regard the respondent/school relies upon the resolutions of the Managing Committee dated 27.8.2008 and 31.3.2009 showing taking over charge as an officiating Principal by Mrs. M.M.Philip/respondent No.4. The second resolution dated 31.3.2009 also talks of the fact that the petitioner had allegedly wrongly taken 'no objection" by undue means from the other persons who were senior in the list to her, and which was one of the grounds for withdrawal by the Managing Committee of the earlier resolution dated 1.7.2008 in the subsequent resolution dated 31.3.2009.