PUSHPA SINGH Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner who is an employee of the UPRAS Vidyalaya/respondent nos. 3 & 4, seeks the reliefs of regularization of the services of the petitioner as T.G.T (Mathematics) and according consequential benefits. The reliefs as stated hereinabove claimed by the petitioner are in sum and substance the reliefs claimed in the writ petition though by language 'reliefs' have been worded separately in view of the order passed by the Directorate of Education dated 24.9.2013.

(2.) BY the judgment in the case of Army Public School & Anr. Vs. Narendra Singh Nain and Anr. in W.P.(C) No. 1439/2013 decided on 30.8.2013, it has been held that the schools are not entitled to continue indefinitely services of its employees/teachers without confirming them, and the schools cannot violate the spirit of the provisions of the Delhi Schools Education Act and Rules, 1973 (DSEAR 1973) by giving repeated ad hoc/temporary/non -regular appointment although the requirements of Rule 105(3) of DSEAR 1973 are not satisfied.

(3.) SO far as the first issue is concerned, as to whether the respondent No. 1's services originally w.e.f. 28.11.2007 are contractual in nature or statutory in character, it would be necessary at this stage to refer to the relevant para 10 of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Management Committee of Montfort Senior Secondary School Vs. Sh. Vijay Kumar and Ors. (supra), but, before I do so I must hasten to add that the observations which are being made by me in this judgment as regards the first issue is because of the facts of this case whereby I am not treating the first appointment as contractual in nature in spite of the letter dated 3.12.2007 so specifying because I hold this letter, and also subsequent probationary/contractual appointment letters, to be a sham and given only for denying regular employment to respondent No. 1 as LDC. The repeated appointments and terminations, have persuaded me to hold that the petitioner's -school's actions are a fraud upon the requirement to normally not to appoint an employee on contract basis. Accordingly, in a case where on account of genuine exigencies a contractual appointment is required (like when a regular employee suddenly leaves etc.) then such employment will be treated as adhoc/temporary/contractual and not a statutory one having protection of the Act & Rules. With this preface let us reproduce para 10 of Montfort Senior Secondary School's case (supra) and which reads as under: -