MUJAHIDUL ISLAM Vs. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks directions to the respondents to confirm/regularize the petitioner s appointment on the post of TGT (Maths). Petitioner also seeks directions to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to release necessary grant -in -aid for the salary of the petitioner payable with effect from 11.12.2006 onwards. Directions are also sought by the petitioner against the respondents for illegally terminating his services and cancelling his appointment on the ground of overage.

(2.) MR . Javed Ahmad, counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had applied for the post of TGT (Maths) against the reserved vacancies of OBC pursuant to the advertisement dated 29.7.2006. Counsel further submits that the petitioner was selected on the said post and pursuant to his selection vide appointment letter dated 9.12.2006 he was given the appointment on the said post. Pursuant to his appointment, the petitioner joined the respondent No. 5 and started performing his job as a teacher. The appointment of the petitioner was also approved by Director of Education as per the mandate of R.98(4) of Delhi School Education Act 1973. Counsel also submits that the respondent No. 2/Director of Education failed to release the 95% grant -in -aid towards the salary of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was overage as on the cut off date laid down in the advertisement. The matter was taken up by the respondent No. 5 school for the release of grant -in -aid in respect of salary of the petitioner and also for granting relaxation in terms of the advertisement and after granting the said relaxation to regularize the appointment of the petitioner in the category of OBC on the said post of TGT (Maths). Counsel for the petitioner further submits that without acceding to the request of the petitioner and that of the school the respondent No. 2 in a most illegal manner dismissed the petitioner from his service with immediate effect through their letter dated 25.8.2007 declining the request of age relaxation. Counsel thus submits that the said decision of the respondent No. 2 is ex -facie illegal as the respondent has not considered the fact that the petitioner had applied for appointment on the said post of TGT (Maths) under the OBC category and for which the petitioner is entitled to relaxation in age for three years. Counsel thus submits that the petitioner who was born on 10.4.1973 is not overage if the said relaxation of three years is granted to him in terms of the said advertisement.

(3.) MR . Atyab Siddiqui, counsel appearing for R -4 and R -5 school, on the other hand, states that the decision of the respondent No. 2 is absolutely illegal on the very face of it as at the time of submitting the application, the petitioner had applied under the category of OBC and the supporting documents were filed by him in which date of birth disclosed by the applicant was 10.4.1973. Counsel further submits that the petitioner had applied in the OBC category and therefore, in terms of the recruitment rules notified through the advertisement, he was entitled for relaxation of three years of age and if the said relaxation is taken into consideration then he was not overage. Counsel thus submits that the respondent No. 2 failed to take into consideration the said fact and in utter haste passed the order of dismissal and also did not release the grant -in -aid for payment of his salary. Counsel for the respondent school further submitted that even the petitioner was entitled to benefit of his adhoc services put in by him with some other school w.e.f. 1.4.2003 to 9.12.2006 which period too was ignored by the respondent No. 2 for reckoning the said period to consider his eligibility to meet the age requirements in terms of the advertisement.