BIR BAHADUR SINGH RATHORE Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) The writ petition had two main prayers. The first was to quash the order of transfer dated 16.7.2005 and the second to set aside the suspension order, memo of charge and the order initiating domestic enquiry. So far as the first prayer is concerned, the same was dealt with and disposed of by this Court on 23.8.2006 holding therein that there was no merit in the challenge to the transfer order. So far as the second prayer relating to the disciplinary proceedings are concerned, the question formulated on 23.8.2006 was whether the Delhi School Education Act applied to the appointment of the petitioner and whether the charge-sheet should be quashed for being in violation of Rule 118.

(3.) The petitioner was appointed by Samarth Shiksha Samiti, Mata Mandir Gali, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-55 in the post of an LDC in the Government pay-scale of 950-20-1150-EB-25-1500. The appointment letter dated 9.5.1992 also said that the petitioner was being appointed on regular basis in Mahasaya Chunni Lal Saraswati Bal Mandir, which is a school. As per the terms of appointment, the petitioner was transferred to the office of the appointing authority, namely, the Samiti vide the impugned transfer order dated 16.7.2005. The petitioner claims that he is governed by the Delhi School Education Act and, therefore, disciplinary proceedings can be taken only in compliance with Rule 118 of The Delhi School Education Rules. The petitioner's claim is that since he was appointed in a school and Delhi School Education Act applies to him, he could not have been proceeded against by the Samarth Shiksha Samiti itself. On behalf of the respondents it is contended that the petitioner was to be proceeded against by the disciplinary committee as provided in Rule 118 whenever he was posted in a school run by the aforesaid Samiti but when the petitioner is actually posted in the Samiti and not in any school, the provisions of Rule 118 cannot be complied with as that committee has to comprise of various persons including the Chairman of the Managing Committee of the school, the head of the school and a teacher of that school, whereas the Samiti, the appointing authority and the office in which the petitioner is presently posted cannot have any person who can be called head of the school or teacher of the school.