AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.—The Petitioner claims to have been appointed as an Assistant Teacher with the Respondent No. 1 Sharda Devi Sanskrit Vidhyapeeth, Darya Ganj on 12th April, 1999, for teaching Hindi and Sanskrit to Classes 6th to 10th; that his services were regularized on 7th August, 2000; that in the seniority list of the Assistant Teachers drawn up on 26th November, 2001, his name figured at serial No. 4; that his salary was not paid for the period 12th April, 1999 to 30th June, 2000 inspite of demand therefore in the letters dated 10th March, 2005, 15th January, 2007 and 26th July, 2007; that he was not allowed inspection of the annual audited account of the school for the years 1998 to 2001 inspite of demand; that he was declared surplus in the Respondent No. 1 school vide order dated 26th February, 2008 of Respondent No. 2 Directorate of Education and which order also directed him to report at Rani Dutta Arya Vidyalaya, Darya Ganj; that he so reported for duty to Rani Dutta Arya Vidyalaya, Darya Ganj; that on 29th February, 2008 Respondent No. 1 school constituted a DPC for promotion to the two posts of TGT in the Respondent No. 1 school, and of which one was reserved for OBC. The Petitioner has sought the relief of directing the Respondent No. 1 school to release the salary of the Petitioner w.e.f. 12th April 1999 to 30th June, 2000 with interest and of directing the Respondents to promote the Petitioner as TGT, Grade-II with consequential benefits.
Notice of the petition was issued and pleadings have been completed. Counsel for the Petitioner and for Respondent No. 1 school has been heard. None has appeared for Respondent No. 2 Directorate of Education.
The status of the Respondent No. 1 school has been enquired. The counsel for the Petitioner states that according to Respondent No. 1 school, it was a recognized unaided school till 30th June 2000 and is an aided school thereafter. He however contends that it was an aided school even prior to 30th June, 2000 and has, in this regard, handed over photocopy of an identity card stated to have been issued by the school on 12th April, 1999. However, the said controversy is not found to be relevant for the present purposes.
It has next been enquired from the counsel for the Petitioner as to whether the post of TGT to which the Petitioner seeks appointment was a promotional post or to be filled by direct recruitment. He states that the same is a promotional post. It has yet next been enquired as to how the Petitioner can seek promotion in the Respondent No. 1 school when he had, prior thereto, been transferred to Rani Dutta Arya Vidyalaya, Darya Ganj. It is not the case of the Petitioner that for promotion, the seniority list is common for all the aided schools. The counsel for the Petitioner replies that though the post of TGT in Respondent No. 1 School existed from prior to his transfer but to deprive him of the said post, it was advertised only after his transfer. Even if that be so, the transfer of the Petitioner from Respondent No. 1 school to Rani Dutta Arya Vidyalaya, Darya Ganj is not under challenge. The Petitioner according to his own case is thus not eligible for promotion claimed.
In this regard, it may also be noted that the Petitioner as Annexure P-18 to the petition has filed an advertisement by which Respondent No. 1 School had invited applications for appointment to the said post and which suggests that the appointment was sought to be made by direct recruitment and not by promotion. There is no explanation as to why the Petitioner could not seek appointment to the said post. The stand of Respondent No. 2 Directorate of Education in its counter affidavit may also be noticed. It is stated that the Respondent No. 1 school had, till the filing of the counter affidavit on 27th May, 2009, not even sought permission or the clearance for filling up of the said posts of TGT. Respondent No. 1 School in its counter affidavit in this regard has stated that the Petitioner is not eligible as per his qualifications for the appointment to the post of TGT and in any case, if considers himself eligible, was free to apply in response to the advertisement aforesaid published by Respondent No. 1 school.
There is thus no merit in the claim of the Petitioner for appointment to the post of TGT.
As far as the claim of the Petitioner for arrears of salary is concerned, not only has it not been explained as to why demand for salary for the period 12th April, 1999 to 30th June, 2000 was made for the first time on 10th March, 2005, but both the Respondents in their counter affidavits have stated that on complaint by the Petitioner to the Directorate of Education in this regard, an inquiry was conducted which did not find any merit in the complaint of the Petitioner and found the salary for the said period to have been paid to the Petitioner. Counsel for Respondent No. 1 school has, in this regard, invited attention to the report at page 159 of the paper book of the Enquiry Committee constituted in this regard.
The Directorate of Education having concluded that the salary has been paid to the Petitioner, no mandamus can be issued to the Directorate of Education. If the Petitioner remained aggrieved from the said report his only remedy was to make claim for salary in a civil court and the same cannot be the subject matter of this writ petition.
There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.
Counsel for the Petitioner seeks liberty to file civil suit for arrears of salary. The Petitioner shall be entitled to make such claim in accordance with law.
No order as to costs.