SAVITA MITTAL Vs. DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , by this writ petition, questions the action of the respondents denying her employment as a Primary Teacher. Respondent no. 1 is the Director of Education and the respondent no. 2 is the school. Respondent no.2 school is an aided school and 95% of its finances are provided by respondent no.1

(2.) THE facts of the case are that petitioner along with one Sh. Vikas Sharma appeared in the selection process for appointment of the two Primary Teachers of respondent No. 2 school in 1996. The selection process was completed as on 07.02.1996 when the interviews were conducted. Petitioner is stated to be a selected candidate in the panel created for appointment to the post of a Primary Teacher in the respondent no. 2 school. It may be noted that there were two posts of Primary Teacher Sh. Vikas Sharma was put at Serial No. 1 and the petitioner was put at Serial No. 2 in the select list. No select list was however published and no appointments were made. Sh. Vikas Sharma hence filed a writ petition in this Court being W.P.(C) 878/1998 seeking appointment, and which writ petition was allowed vide order dated 17.03.2006. At this stage, the respondent no. 2 school in compliance of the order passed in the writ petition of Sh. Vikas Sharma, appointed not only Sh. Vikas Sharma but also the present petitioner as Primary Teachers. Since the respondent no. 2 is an aided school and when the recommendations for appointment were sent to the respondent no. 1/Directorate of Education, Directorate of Education gave appointment to Sh. Vikas Sharma but denied appointment to the petitioner in terms of the impugned communications dated 14.09.2006 and 17.10.2006. Hence the present petition.

(3.) I may finally note that from the year 1996 till 2006 there is no correspondence or any other single communication or any other representation which is filed by the petitioner with the respondents, and whereby, petitioner sought implementation of the result of the Selection Committee held on 07.02.1996. Also there is no promise held out by the respondent no. 1 during this period i.e 1996 to 2006 that the petitioner's case was being considered by the respondent no. 1. Hence clearly this petition filed in 2006 to enforce a right which came into existence in 1996 is barred by delay and laches and that the select panel lapsed.