VEENA GUPTA Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner prior to seeking amendment in the writ petition, had approached this Court in the year 1993 invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking regularization on the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) w. e. f. 12. 1. 1977 with all consequential benefits including seniority, provident fund, arrears of salary, gratuity, pension and DA etc. The petitioner has also sought quashing of letter dated 26. 3. 1993 whereby respondent No. 1 i. e. Office of the Directorate of education had declined to entertain the proposal for regularizing the services of the petitioner on the ground that the candidature of the petitioner along with other such candidates would be considered only when vacancies arise in the school and for which normal procedure for notification of vacancies as per 40 point roster shall be adopted. The petitioner has also sought declaration of rule 151 of the Delhi School Education Rules as ultra vires being in violation of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 39 D of the Constitution of India.

(2.) BEFORE dealing with the rival contentions of the parties, it would be appropriate to give brief description of facts. The petitioner claims that she was initially appointed as Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) with Lady Irwin senior Secondary School, which is an aided school established much prior to coming into force of The Delhi School Education Act, 1973. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) vide orders dated 25. 9. 1972 on the consolidated salary of Rs. 550/- per month and while she was working on the said post vide memorandum dated 12th January, 1977 the respondent no. 3 School informed her that the post of PGT (Economics) will continue up to 31st January, 1977 (AM) and in its place she was offered the post of TGT (Economics) w. e. f. 1st February, 1977. The petitioner was required to give her acceptance to the said offer for appointment on the post of TGT w. e. f. 1st february, 1977 in the scale of Rs. 440-750. The petitioner reluctantly gave her consent on the specific assurance of respondent No. 3 that her service on the post of TGT shall be regularized with the necessary approval of respondent No. 1. The petitioner kept on making the request for regularization of her service orally as well as personally, but a written representation in this regard was made by the petitioner after a long gap of about more than 9 years. The representation dated 7th August, 1986 has been placed on record by the petitioner to that effect. Thereafter, various representations were made by the petitioner as well as letters were sent by the school to respondent No. 1 requesting for her regularization on the said post with all admissible benefits. It is only when respondent No. 1 wrote letter dated 26th March, 1993 informing the school that the candidature of the petitioner and other such candidates could only be considered after availability of the vacancies, the petitioner got activated to assail the same by filing the present petition.

(3.) THE petitioner amended the said writ petition by moving an amendment application in the year 2003 and in the amended writ petition the petitioner added another prayer so as to seek regularization of her services on the post of pgt w. e. f. 27. 9. 1972 with all consequential benefits. The petitioner sought amendment in the writ petition on the ground that the Directorate of Education vide their letter dtd. 24th November, 1972 had duly accorded approval to the appointment of the petitioner on the post of PGT (Economics) with effect from the date of her appointment with the said school. The petitioner also placed on record photocopy of the minutes of the Selection Committee dated 23. 9. 1972, photocopy of the letter dated 25th September, 1972 issued by the school informing the petitioner about her appointment, photocopy of the letter dated 19. 10. 1972 from the Education Officer seeking clarification from the school about the due sponsorship of these candidates by the employment exchange, photocopy of the letter dated 4th November, 1972 whereby a reminder was sent by the school to the Education Department regarding the grant of approval of the said appointments, a copy of the proforma for seeking approval of appointments and a copy of the letter dated 24th November, 1972 from the Education Officer, directorate of Education to the school whereby the necessary approval was granted on the appointment of the petitioner along with two candidates. On the strength of these documents the petitioner added the said relief of claiming regular appointment on the post of PGT (Economics) with all consequential benefits. No counter affidavit was filed by respondent No. 3 school to the amended writ petition. However, in the counter affidavit filed by the school to the initial writ petition, the stand taken is more or less, in support of the petitioner. Respondent No. 3 stated that the appointment of the petitioner was made on ad hoc basis on the post of PGT (Economics) on a consolidated salary of rs. 550/- per month, which was to be paid by the school from the development fee fund as maintained by the school. Even on the post of TGT the consolidated salary was being paid by the school from the development fee fund. Respondent no. 3 also stated that the petitioner was given an opportunity to become a regular teacher on the post of assistant teacher when the vacancies arose on the said post in the year 1987-88, but the said offer was ignored by the petitioner due to risk of incurring heavy financial losses on such acceptance. Respondent no. 3 school further submitted that the school had taken up the matter with the directorate of Education for absorption of the petitioner on the regular post of tgt (Economics) but despite many letters written by the school, the Directorate of Education did not agree to accord permission for regularization of the petitioner on the said post of TGT (Economics ).