SARLA AGGARWAL Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This LPA challenges the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16th April 2002 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant on two grounds that (a) no aid was being received by the respondent No.2 Shri Hanuman Mandir Secondary School (hereinafter referred to as the "school") from respondent No.1 Director of Education (hereinafter referred to as the "DOE"), on the presumption that the appellant was over aged. The appellant was working with the respondent No.2 school on the basis of letter dated 11th July 1998 solely on the basis of the aid being received from respondent No.1 which aid was not received. The learned Single Judge on the basis of above finding and the finding that the letter dated 11th July 1998 not having been disclosed amounted to a material suppression dismissed the writ petition.

(2.) The relevant facts which are necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: (a) The appellant was the writ petitioner who was working as an Assistant Teacher with respondent No.2 school and on and from 3rd May 1995 she was not allowed to resume duty. This was based on the stand of the respondent No.2 school that the appellant was never an employee of the government aided middle school and the appellant was only directed to join the nursery school. It is not in dispute that the respondent No.2 society was running 2 schools, one a nursery school and the second a recognized middle school. In July 1995 the appellant filed an appeal No.18/1995 challenging the cessation of her services before the Delhi School Tribunal under the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"). The Tribunal by its order dated 30.4.1996 recorded the following issue which arose for determination:

(3.) Consequently, pursuant to the above terms of settlement it was clear that the appellant was held by the School's Tribunal to be a teacher of the middle school of respondent No.2 and such a finding stood affirmed by implementation of the judgment by virtue of the order of the High Court dated 12.3.1998 in terms of CM 2023/98 filed by the parties incorporating the above terms. On 11th July 1998 the appellant sought reappointment to the recognized middle school by her letter dated 11th July 1998 stipulated that the services of the appellant were being offered voluntarily on the understanding that she would be entitled to payment of salary only after the school received aid for her salary from the Department of Directorate of Education. It was contended by the appellant that consequent to the correspondence ensuing between Respondent No.1 DOE and respondent No.2 school and in particular the letter of the Respondent No.1 DOE dated 17.8.1999 asking for details of the appointment of the appellant and the letter of Respondent No.2 school dated 19.8.99 answering the queries of the Respondent No.1 DOE there was deemed approval of the appointment of the appellant. The only ground on which respondent No.1 had denied the appellant's claim is that the appellant having earlier joined an unrecognized and unaided school could not seek employment on the basis of such service in the aided recognized school.