DURGA BISHT Vs. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN spite of repeated opportunities, respondent nos.2 and 3 have not filed the counter -affidavit. In my opinion, this is a deliberate ploy to adjourn the case and which becomes clear from the speaking order dated 29.7.2013 by which interim order has been passed in favour of the petitioner. The right to file counter -affidavit is therefore closed. Respondent no.1 has already filed its counter -affidavit. Respondent no.4 is served but did not appear. Accordingly, let the petitioner argue the case. Counsel for the petitioner has argued.

(2.) ON 29.7.2013, the following order was passed

(3.) THERE is another reason why the reliefs claimed in this writ petition have to be granted. This is because of Rule 105(3) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 which states that the permanent appointments in schools can only be avoided if there is a temporary vacancy or vacancies for a limited period. The spirit of this provision is contained in ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Management Committee of Montfort Senior Secondary School Vs. Sh. Vijay Kumar and Ors., (2005) 7 SCC 472 and para 10 of which reads as under: -