DHARAMBIR SINGH Vs. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has retired from respondent-School on 30th September, 2017 and had sought automatic re-employment for two years in terms of order of 27th January, 2012 (Annexure A-4). According to petitioner, his case for re-employment was recommended to respondent-Directorate of Education on 31st August, 2017 (Annexure P-3 colly) and the clear vacancy position was also intimated by respondent-School alongwith petitioner's Integrity Certificate, Work and Conduct Certificate, etc.. Respondent-School had also issued Vigilance Clearance Certificate on 31st August, 2017. However, respondent-Directorate of Education vide impugned order of 30th October, 2017 (Annexure A-1) has rejected respondent-Schools' recommendation for petitioner's re-employment, which is under challenge in this petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that not only impugned order (Annexure A-1) is cryptic, but is arbitrary as Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 98 of the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 mandates that in a case where appointment made by the Managing Committee of an aided school is not approved by the respondent-Directorate of Education within 15 days, then there shall be deemed approval. To submit so, reliance is placed by petitioner's counsel upon decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Surendra Singh v. Manager, Haryana Shakti Sr. Sec. School & Ors., 2002 95 DLT 135.

(3.) Attention of this Court is also drawn by learned counsel for petitioner to Proviso to Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 98 of the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 to point out that when the government nominee is not present, then only the approval of Directorate of Education is required and also in a case, where there is difference of opinion amongst the Members of the Selection Committee. It is pointed out by petitioner's counsel that in the Minutes of Managing Committee's meeting held on 26th July, 2017 (Annexure P-2), the Directorate's nominee was acting as Vice-Principal of the School and the Managing Committee had unanimously recommended petitioner's case for reemployment and so, no approval was required and in any case, since the approval did not come within mandatory period of 15 days, therefore, there was a deemed approval. So, it is submitted on behalf of petitioner that impugned order (Annexure A-1) deserves to be set aside and respondent-School be directed to re-employ petitioner for a period of two years.