Savita Mittal vs The Director, Directorate of Education and Another

Valmiki J Mehta, J.—Petitioner, by this writ petition, questions the action of the respondents denying her employment as a Primary Teacher. Respondent no. 1 is the Director of Education and the respondent no. 2 is the school. Respondent no. 2-school is an aided school and 95% of its finances are provided by respondent no. 1. The facts of the case are that petitioner along with one Sh. Vikas Sharma appeared in the selection process for appointment of the two Primary Teachers of respondent No. 2-school in 1996. The selection process was completed as on 07.02.1996 when the interviews were conducted. Petitioner is stated to be a selected candidate in the panel created for appointment to the post of a Primary Teacher in the respondent no. 2-school. It may be noted that there were two posts of Primary Teacher Sh. Vikas Sharma was put at Serial No. 1 and the petitioner was put at Serial No. 2 in the select list. No select list was however published and no appointments were made. Sh. Vikas Sharma hence filed a writ petition in this Court being W.P. (C) 878/1998 seeking appointment, and which writ petition was allowed vide order dated 17.03.2006. At this stage, the respondent no. 2-school in compliance of the order passed in the writ petition of Sh. Vikas Sharma, appointed not only Sh. Vikas Sharma but also the present petitioner as Primary Teachers. Since the respondent no. 2 is an aided school and when the recommendations for appointment were sent to the respondent no. 1/Directorate of Education, Directorate of Education gave appointment to Sh. Vikas Sharma but denied appointment to the petitioner in terms of the impugned communications dated 14.09.2006 and 17.10.2006. Hence the present petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the cause of action in favour of the petitioner arose in the year 2006 when the writ petition of Sh. Vikas Sharma was allowed, and therefore, this writ petition is not barred by delay and laches. It is argued that the entitlement of the petitioner to be appointed as a Primary Teacher with the respondent no. 2-school arose when the writ petition of Sh. Vikas Sharma was allowed in 2006. The right of Mr. Vikas Sharma, in the opinion of this Court, was an independent right i.e. it is independent of the right claimed by the petitioner herein. There is no law that if one of the selected candidates files a writ petition, and succeeds in getting appointment, every other person must also be appointed and cause of action only then arises for such candidates to seek appointment. If the petitioner wanted appointment on the basis of selection in 1996, she could not have waited till 2006 to file the present writ petition. If the petitioner was really serious and interested, there was no reason for the petitioner to not approach this Court in around 1996 or at the very best till around 1999-2000 for seeking appointment. No doubt Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to a writ petition but the period provided therein is a good guide to determine the issue of delay and laches. I cannot agree with the counsel for the petitioner that petitioner had no means of knowing what was the decision of the Selection Committee till 2006 inasmuch as surely law requires that if a person has appeared in an interview and has not been communicated the result within a reasonable period of time then such a person must show interest by corresponding with the appropriate authority for finding out the result of the selection process. It is not the legal position that a person can sleep over the matter and in this case for a long period of time i.e. about 10 years and suddenly assert a right simply because respondent no. 2 for unexplained reasons while implementing the order delivered in the writ petition of Sh. Vikas Sharma also surreptitiously included the name of the petitioner herein for appointment as a Primary Teacher. Since the respondent no. 2-school is an aided school and the respondent no. 1 gives financial aid to the extent of 95% surely it is the respondent no. 1 who is vitally interested, and as against this respondent No. 1, there cannot be enforcement of a stale right of the 1996 in the year 2006. I may state that respondent no. 1 in the counter-affidavit has taken up the defence that the panel lapses after one year, and I do not find any illegality in this defence inasmuch as a selection panel does not remain in existence for an interminable period.

I may finally note that from the year 1996 till 2006 there is no correspondence or any other single communication or any other representation which is filed by the petitioner with the respondents, and whereby, petitioner sought implementation of the result of the Selection Committee held on 07.02.1996. Also there is no promise held out by the respondent no. 1 during this period i.e. 1996 to 2006 that the petitioner''s case was being considered by the respondent no. 1. Hence clearly this petition filed in 2006 to enforce a right which came into existence in 1996 is barred by delay and laches and that the select panel lapsed. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.