Dharambir Singh vs Directorate Of Education And Ors

Sunil Gaur, J

Petitioner has retired from respondent-School on 30th September, 2017 and had sought automatic re-employment for two years in terms of order of

27th January, 2012 (Annexure A-4). According to petitioner, his case for re-employment was recommended to respondent-Directorate of Education

on 31st August, 2017 (Annexure P-3 colly) and the clear vacancy position was also intimated by respondent-School alongwith petitioner’s Integrity

Certificate, Work and Conduct Certificate, etc.. Respondent-School had also issued Vigilance Clearance Certificate on 31st August, 2017. However,

respondent-Directorate of Education vide impugned order of 30th October, 2017 (Annexure A-1) has rejected respondent-Schools’

recommendation for petitioner’s re-employment, which is under challenge in this petition.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that not only impugned order (Annexure A-1) is cryptic, but is arbitrary as Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 98 of the

Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 mandates that in a case where appointment made by the Managing Committee of an aided school is not

approved by the respondent-Directorate of Education within 15 days, then there shall be deemed approval. To submit so, reliance is placed by

petitioner’s counsel upon decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Surendra Singh v. Manager, Haryana Shakti Sr. Sec. School & Ors., 95

(2002) DLT 135.

Attention of this Court is also drawn by learned counsel for petitioner to Proviso to Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 98 of the Delhi School Education Act and

Rules, 1973 to point out that when the government nominee is not present, then only the approval of Directorate of Education is required and also in a

case, where there is difference of opinion amongst the Members of the Selection Committee. It is pointed out by petitioner’s counsel that in the

Minutes of Managing Committee’s meeting held on 26th July, 2017 (Annexure P-2), the Directorate’s nominee was acting as Vice-Principal

of the School and the Managing Committee had unanimously recommended petitioner’s case for re-employment and so, no approval was required

and in any case, since the approval did not come within mandatory period of 15 days, therefore, there was a deemed approval. So, it is submitted on

behalf of petitioner that impugned order (Annexure A-1) deserves to be set aside and respondent-School be directed to re-employ petitioner for a

period of two years.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent-Directorate of Education submits that the aforesaid stand taken by petitioner is strongly

contested and so, either an opportunity to file a short affidavit be provided to respondent-Directorate of Education or in the alternative, a week’s

time be granted to permit respondent-Directorate of Education to pass a speaking order within a week, so that factual position clearly emerges before

the Court. Learned counsel for respondent-Directorate of Education maintains that there are good reasons for not granting approval to petitioner’s

re-employment and the Rules referred to are not applicable to the case of petitioner, as it is a case of re-employment for which there is no provision in

the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 and such re-employment is to be granted under the Office Order (Annexure A-4).

Upon considering the submissions advanced by both the sides and on perusal of the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973, the material on

record, the original record produced by respondent-Directorate of Education and the decision cited, I find that a clear picture is not before the Court

and so, in order to bring on record the complete facts, it is deemed appropriate to permit respondent-Directorate of Education to substitute impugned

order (Annexure A-1) with a fresh order in which the entire factual background finds mention and the reasons for not granting approval are dealt

with.

In the facts and circumstances of this case, petitioner is permitted to concisely put his stand as taken herein in form of a Representation before

respondent-Directorate of Education, within five working days and respondent-Directorate of Education is called upon to decide the said

Representation by putting forth the correct and complete factual position and to deal with the stand taken by petitioner in the Representation by

passing a speaking order while dealing with decision in Surendra Singh (supra), within five days of receiving such a Representation and the fate of the

Representation be conveyed to petitioner within two days thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of the remedies as available in law, if need be. Since

petitioner has already retired, therefore, no interim order is called for.

With aforesaid directions, this petition and the application are disposed of.

Dasti.