ROOPA SHARMA Vs. DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners, who are teachers in the respondent no.3/School, seek the benefit under Section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 (DSEAR 1973) that they should be paid monetary benefits which are payable to employees of corresponding status in schools run by the government.

(2.) THAT the petitioners are teachers in the respondent no.3/School is an undisputed fact. I may note that respondent nos. 3 and 4 being the School and the Society have not filed their counter -affidavits but have only filed written submissions. In the written submissions, and before this Court orally, what is contented on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4 is that petitioners are not entitled to the benefits under Section 10 of the DSEAR 1973 inasmuch as, petitioners do not have the qualifications for being appointed as teachers of the respondent no.3/school.

(3.) THE defence raised by the respondent nos. 3 and 4 is liable to be rejected for various reasons. Firstly, in the absence of counter -affidavit, no defence can be seen inasmuch as, respondent nos. 3 and 4 were bound to file their stand on affidavit but they have not done so. Secondly, for the sake of argument if the stand of the respondent nos. 3 and 4 has to be looked into, yet, the mandate of Section 10 of the DSEAR 1973 is clear. Section 10 of the DSEAR 1973 specifically states that teachers and employees of a recognized school have to get the same monetary benefits as payable to employees of a government school. Thirdly, the difference between a recognized and unrecognized school has now been done away with in terms of a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Social Jurist, a Civil Rights Group Vs. GNCT and Ors., 147 (2008) DLT 729 and which holds that the provisions of Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 apply to all schools in Delhi, whether they are recognized or not recognized, with the sequitur that it cannot be argued that respondent no.3/School would be de -recognized on account of petitioners not having the requisite qualifications. Fourthly and finally, the argument urged on behalf of the respondent nos. 3 and 4 cannot be looked into because how the petitioners are disqualified for appointment ie how the petitioners lack eligibility is not found in any manner even in the written submissions filed by respondents no. 3 and 4 much less by filing an affidavit specifically dealing with each of the 8 petitioners as to how these petitioners do not have necessary eligibility criteria for being appointed as teachers of the respondent no.3/School.