KALPANA GUPTA Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher (Part-time) in Govt. Sarvodaya Bal Vidhyalaya, Radhey Shyam Park, Delhi. The terms and conditions of her appointment regarding remuneration and period of teaching were explained to her by respondent no. 1 verbally and anything in writing was avoided to be given towards conditions of service. The petitioner completed full two academic sessions successfully for the years 1995-96 and 1996-97. It was midway of the session 1997-98, when suddenly on 15.01.1998, the Principal of the said school, who was also working as Education Officer intimated her verbally that her services stand terminated. It is pointed out that petitioner is a fully qualified teacher. She is double M.A. B.Ed. She was well within the age limit prescribed by the Director of Education, but when her services were terminated, she had crossed 45 years. she had crossed the age limit prescribed for any such job or Govt. jobs. The remuneration which the petitioner received was not less than the daily wages i.e. daily wages started initially at Rs. 25/- per day which was gradually raised to Rs. 35/-, Rs. 40/- Rs. 45/- and lastly Rs. 50/- per day till termination of her services. No wages were paid for Sundays, holidays and vacations, whereas the other teachers were having holidays/vacations etc. on full pay. It is pointed out that this is against the principle of "equal pay for equal work". The petitioner was kept on part time basis as a temporary teacher but in due course of time, she was given assurance that she would be absorbed as a regular teacher against a permanent post in the same school. However, needful was never done. Authorities also refused to issue work experience certificate. Under these circumstances, the petitioner filed the present writ petition wherein she prays to quash the termination order dated 15.01.1998 and restore the employment of the petitioner with back wages from the date of termination i.e. 15.01.1998 till she is to be considered for regular appointment on the regular post of teacher.

(2.) I have heard the counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Rudra Kumar Sain and others v. Union of India and others, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2808 and the counsel for the respondent placed reliance on National Fertilizer v. Somveer Singh 2006 SCC 493 as well as Secretary State of Karnataka V. Uma Devi 2006 4 SCC 1, the Constitution Bench judgment. The learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that no letter of appointment was issued in her favour, the contract of service was never reduced in writing and termination of the petitioner was also oral. From the pleadings of the petitioner herself it appears that she was appointed as a daily wager. Again her appointment was not regular. Rule 96 (b) of the Delhi School Education Rules 1973 runs as follows:-

(3.) In the light of the discussion, I find that writ is meritless and therefore, the same is dismissed.