TABITA CHAND Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/writ petitioner was working as a PGT in B.M.Gange Girls Senior Secondary School, which is under the management and control of respondents No.2 and 3. The case of the appellant is that in a meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee, held on 1st July, 2008, a recommendation was made to the Managing Committee of the school to promote her to the post of Principal and the Managing Committee, in its meeting held on 3rd July, 2008, taking into consideration the recommendation made by the DPC, resolved to accept the aforesaid recommendation and appoint her as the Principal of the said school with effect from 1st July, 2008. The appellant joined as Principal of the school with effect from 1st July, 2008. A communication was sent by the Manager of the school to the Directorate of Education, seeking approval of the said Directorate, to the promotion of the appellant to the post of Principal. Vide communication dated 15th July, 2008, Directorate of Education informed the Manager of the school that the decision of the Managing Committee to promote the appellant to the post of Principal in the DPC held on 1st July, 2008, had been disapproved by the Competent Authority. WP(C) No.7585/2008 was then filed by the appellant seeking quashing of the aforesaid communication dated 15 th July, 2008. She also sought a direction fixing her new pay scale as the Principal of the school. Yet another direction sought by her was to restrain the respondents in the writ petition from removing her from the post of Principal.

(2.) RESPONDENTS No.2 and 3 filed reply contesting the writ petition. They, inter alia, alleged that the appellant had misrepresented to the Managing Committee that the other senior teachers had given their No Objections, which subsequently turned out to be incorrect, since the No Objections were obtained under duress and were subsequently withdrawn by those teachers and therefore the Managing Committee appointed respondent No.4 Mrs. M.M.Philip as the Officiating Principal and she continues to officiate as the Principal of the school. This was also the case of respondents No.2 and 3 that the earlier Resolution was withdrawn by them by way of a subsequent Resolution dated 27th August, 2009 and therefore the process of recommending the name of the appellant stood annulled.

(3.) RULE 98 of Delhi School Education Rules 1973 does mandate prior approval of Directorate of Education to every appointment made by the Managing Committee of an unaided school, but the second proviso to the said Rule expressly excludes from its ambit, a minority aided school. It is not in dispute that the school in which the appellant was working as a minority aided school, therefore, no approval of the Directorate of Education was required for appointment of the appellant as Principal of the said school. Consequently, the communication seeking such an approval as well as rejection of approval by the Directorate, both being misconceived in law are liable to be excluded from consideration.