SUSHILA DEVI Vs. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner for quashing of the appointment of respondent no.3 as the Physical Education Teacher in the respondent no.2 -school in terms of the Selection Committee Meeting dated 17.3.2012. The case of the petitioner is that she was a better candidate for being appointed as a Physical Education Teacher and not the respondent no.3. In the writ petition it is also alleged that the selection of the respondent no.3 is vitiated because the father of the respondent no.3 was working as an English teacher in the respondent no.2 -school.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the respondent no.2 -school invited applications vide advertisement dated 21.10.2011 for recruitment of a Physical Education Teacher. Various persons including the petitioner applied for the post. Petitioner was also called for the interview. Ultimately as a result of the selection done by the Selection Committee, the respondent no.3 was appointed, and whose appointment is challenged by the writ petition. The petitioner besides claiming that she is better than the respondent no.3 also alleges that respondent no.2 committed theft of her original documents and with respect to which a complaint has been made by her to the SHO, Police Station Sarai Rohilla.

(3.) RESPONDENT no.2 -school has filed a counter -affidavit and stated that the Staff Selection Committee (SSC) had been duly constituted in terms of the requisite Rule 96 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 and this SSC considered the candidates who appeared in the interview for the selection as Physical Education Teacher. Total number of candidates who applied were 53 including the petitioner. 42 candidates were found to meet the eligibility criteria. 20 candidates including the petitioner were short listed for the interview and called for the interview which was held on 17.3.2012. Out of the 20 candidates called for the interview, 11 candidates appeared in the interview. SSC on the basis of academic index prepared and as per the devised marking scheme based on educational qualifications and professional experience and performance in the interview, unanimously recommended the name of respondent no.3 to be appointed as the Physical Education Teacher of the respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 has stated in the counter -affidavit that merely because the father of respondent no.3 was an English teacher in the school, cannot mean that the selection process can be questioned, inasmuch as, the father of the respondent no.3 had nothing to do with the selection process undertaken and the selection made, which was done by the SSC duly constituted in terms of Rule 96 of the Delhi School Education Rules. The SSC contained not only an Education Officer who was the representative of the Director of Education, and in the SSC there was a subject expert nominated by the Director of Education in terms of the relevant sub -rule of Rule 96.