NEELAM DUA Vs. AGGARWAL WELFARE SOCIETY AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was a Nursery Teacher, who claims to have taught in respondent-School from 1st July, 1998 till 31st March, 2008 when respondent-School had closed down. In this petition, reinstatement with full back wages is sought by petitioner. Prior to filing of this writ petition, petitioner had served a legal notice of 17th November, 2009 (Annexure P-21) to which reply (Annexure P-22) was given by respondent-School on 27th November, 2009. It is matter of record that petitioner was offered a job of Receptionist by respondent-Society but it was not acceptable to petitioner because she was not qualified for the said job. The grievance of petitioner is that similarly situated 5 or 6 teachers were absorbed by respondent-School. In the reply to the legal notice, it is not stated that petitioner was ineligible for being absorbed as a Nursery Teacher. However, in the counter affidavit filed by respondent-School, it is so stated, but it is of no consequence for the reason that her eligibility in the year 2008 was to be seen and it has to be also kept in mind that she had already taught for about a decade when the respondent-School was closed down.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent-School submits that this writ petition is not maintainable as the remedy available with the petitioner was to approach the Delhi School Tribunal.

(3.) Upon hearing and on perusal of material on record, I find that no case for petitioner's reinstatement is made out. At best, petitioner could have sought absorption in the school run by respondent-Society. Petitioner's plea of similarly placed 5 or 6 teachers being absorbed upon closure of school run by respondent-Society is not adverted, to by respondent-Society in the reply to legal notice or in the counter affidavit filed.