SUSHMA NAYAR Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a post-graduate teacher in Mathematics in Delhi public School, Mathura Road. She has raised challenge to the appointment and continuance of respondent No. 4 as Principal of the said school, on the ground that as on the date of selection, he did not possess the requisite qualification as he was 48 years of age whereas, the upper age limit for being considered to the post was 45 years. The fact that respondent No. 4 was over 45 years of age at the time of his selection is not in dispute. However, consequent upon his selection and confirmation, a communication was addressed by the Chairman of the Delhi Public School Society to the directorate of Education requesting for grant of ex-post facto relaxation in his age. The ground taken was that he had remained in the employment of dps Society in his capacity as teacher and head of the department in a school at Bhilai and that the upper age limit of 45 years should not be made applicable to him as he had 23 years of teaching and administrative experience to his credit. The request so made did not find favour with the director of Education. Hence, it was declined and the school was called upon to take remedial action. It appears that no action to remedy the situation was taken inviting in its wake a notice to the school to show-cause why the recognition of the school be not withdrawn. In response to the notice, a detailed reply was filed by the school and upon consideration of that reply, the Director of Education reversed its earlier order and granted age relaxation to respondent No. 4.

(2.) THE main submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the director of Education does not possess the power to review its own order. Hence, it is contended that the earlier order passed by the Director holding the appointment of respondent No. 4 as violative of the Delhi School education Rules, 1973 still holds the field and consequently, the subsequent order reviewing the earlier order is liable to be quashed.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the school has disputed the submission that the Director of Education has no power to review his own order but his main submission is that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold without going into the factual matrix of the case and the legal submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, on the sole ground that it suffers from delay and laches.