SURAJ KANYA SHIKSHALAYA Vs. LALITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction thereby quashing the order dated 13.07.2017 passed by Delhi School Tribunal in Appeal No.23/2015 filed by respondent no.1.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that there were vacancies in the school in the year 2015, accordingly the petitioner school approached respondent no.2 for filling up the vacancies. The Director of Education vide order dated 27.10.2014 allowed the petitioner to fulfil the vacant post of Primary Teacher. Pursuant to above, the petitioner got published an advertisement dated 09.12.2014 in Hindustan Times calling for application for the post of Assistant Teacher. It was stipulated in the advertisement that the essential education qualification was Senior Secondary or equivalent with at least 50% marks, two years Diploma/ certificate course in ETE/ JBT or B.El.Ed. from recognized institution & 'pass? in the CTET conducted by the CBSE with age not exceeding 30 years (relaxable for reserved categories up to 5 years.) In order to come out of the shortcoming, the respondent no.1 filed a writ petition before this Court vide W.P.(C) No. 2970/2015 and claimed that she had been imparting education to the children in the petitioner's school since 2005, thus she has the experience rather than the certificate of CTET required by rules prescribed by respondent no.2 for the recruitment of Assistant Teacher. It was further alleged in the writ petition that she has been working with the school since July 2005 being appointed on temporary arrangement and continued till January 2015 when she was stopped illegally and unlawfully to enter the school premises. Accordingly, sought direction vide the aforesaid petition that the petitioner school may be directed to consider the petitioner as eligible candidate in all respects, for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) and further prayed to set aside/quash the criteria of additional qualification of CTET made in the advertisement dated 09.12.2014. The same was dismissed vide order dated 27.03.2015 and while dismissing, this Court recorded in para as under:

(3.) Further case of the petitioner is that the respondent no.1 filed an appeal against the petitioner's school before the Tribunal taking same pleas and grounds but without disclosing about the filling of W.P.(C) No. 2970/2015. Furthermore, respondent no.1 had given applications dated 10.10.2013 and 01.09.2014 to the petitioner school stating that she be allowed to work in the school as a trainee, voluntarily to gain experience in her career. But no appointment letter, after following the due procedure and selection by a selection committee/DPC in terms of Rule 96, appointing her as a regular Assistant Teacher was ever issued to the respondent no.1 nor did she produce any, either before this Court in the writ petition or before the Delhi School Tribunal in the appeal. Even respondent no.2 herein, the Director (Primary Education) in their reply before DST admitted that she was not eligible/qualified to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher. Despite all the above facts and completely ignoring the dicta of Hon'ble the Supreme Court for such cases in the case of the Secretary vs. Smt. Uma Devi, 2006 1 SCC 1, the DST has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent no.1 and directed the petitioner school to reinstate her within one month with all consequential benefits.