SONIA MEHTA Vs. DAYANAND MODEL SCHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER by this writ petition prays for regularization of her appointment with the respondent No.1-school. Petitioner also claims consequential payments with respect to salaries and other benefits which are awarded to teachers in a school.

(2.) I have recently decided two cases and ratios of which cases will squarely apply to the facts of the present case also. First case which will apply is of Hamdard Public School Vs. Directorate of Education and Anr. in W.P.(C) No.8652/2011 decided on 25.7.2013 wherein I have said that ordinarily a teacher would be confirmed after a period of three years in probation unless there are valid reasons and which are justiciable before Court. The second case is the case of Army Public School and Anr. Vs. Narendra Singh Nain and Anr. in W.P.(C) No.1439/2013 decided on 30.8.2013 wherein I have held that in the guise of giving and continuing of contractual employment by reemployment/reappointment, a teacher cannot be deprived of the benefits of Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 and such a teacher will be taken to be a regular/confirmed teacher and not one only on contractual employment. I would reproduce the ratios of these judgments subsequently, however, let me first state the facts of the present case.

(3.) A reference to the counter-affidavit of respondent Nos.1 to 3 shows that basically what the school contends is that petitioner with open eyes accepted contractual employment at a consolidated salary and therefore she cannot claim an entitlement of a regular teacher. The principle of estoppel is also sought to be pressed against the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner cannot seek regularization because she has not been appointed against a substantive post and nor is there any vacancy because the subject of Music and Dance is not a regular subject in the school.