Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Asha Ram vs Govt. Of Nctd on 15 November, 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
O.A.No.946/2014
With
O.A.No.1247/2014
O.A.No.1341/2014
O.A.No.793/2014
O.A.No.3296/2013
Order Reserved on: 15.01.2016
Order Pronounced on: 15.11.2016
Hon'ble Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. Raj Vir Sharma, Member (J)
(A) O.A.No.946/2014
Asha Ram, Principal (Retd.)
From G.B.S.S.S., A-Block,
Nand Nagri, Delhi
R/o 164-B, Pkt. A,
Dilshad Garden,
Delhi-110 095.
..Applicant
(Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate)
Versus
1. Hon'ble L.G.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Raj Niwas Marg, Delhi
2. Govt. of NCT of Delhi through
Chief Secretary
Delhi Secretariat
IP Estate, New Delhi
3. The Secretary, Education
Directorate of Education
GNCT of Delhi
Old Secretariat, Delhi
4. The Director of Education
Directorate of Education
GNCT of Delhi
Old Secretariat, Delhi
5. The Regional Director/
Additional Director of Education
District East, Rani Garden
Geeta Colony Delhi-110031
2
O.A.No.946/2014
With
O.A.No.793/2014
O.A.No.1247/2014
O.A.No.1341/2014
O.A.No.3296/2013
6. The Dy. Director of Education
District North-East,
B-Block, Yamuna Vihar
Delhi.
..Respondents
(Mr. Vijay Pandita, Advocate)
(B) O.A.No.1247/2014
Malkhan Singh, Principal (Retd.)
Age 60 years
From GGSSS Sabhapur
Delhi
R/o A-6/520-A, East Gokulpur,
Delhi-110 094
..Applicant
(Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate)
Versus
1. Hon'ble LG
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Raj Niwas Marg, Delhi
2. Govt. of NCT of Delhi through
Chief Secretary
Delhi Secretariat
IP Estate, New Delhi
3. The Secretary, Education
Directorate of Education
GNCT of Delhi
Old Secretariat, Delhi
4. The Director of Education
Directorate of Education,
GNCT of Delhi
Old Secretariat, Delhi
5. The Regional Director/
Additional Director of Education
District North-East, Rani Garden
Geeta Colony, Delhi-110031
3
O.A.No.946/2014
With
O.A.No.793/2014
O.A.No.1247/2014
O.A.No.1341/2014
O.A.No.3296/2013
6. The Dy. Director of Education
District North-East
B-Block, Yamuna Vihar,
Delhi.
..Respondents
(Mr. Vijay Pandita, Advocate)
(C) O.A.No.1341/2014
Shri Chhiddi Singh, aged 62 years (Principal)
S/o Sh. Thandi Ram
R/o H.No.F-292
Narwal Bhawan, Kumharon Wali Gali
Badarpur, New Delhi-110044
..Applicant
(Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate)
Versus
Government of NCT of Delhi
Through Director of Education
Old Secretariat, Delhi
..Respondent
(Mr. Vijay Pandita, Advocate)
(D) O.A.No.793/2014
C S Bhandari, Principal (Retd.)
From GBSSS, Gokalpur Village,
Delhi
R/o A-103, Gali No.3
East Nathu Colony
Delhi-93
..Applicant
(Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate)
Versus
1. Hon'ble LG
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Raj Niwas Marg, Delhi
2. Govt. of NCT of Delhi through
Chief Secretary
Delhi Secretariat
IP Estate, New Delhi
4
O.A.No.946/2014
With
O.A.No.793/2014
O.A.No.1247/2014
O.A.No.1341/2014
O.A.No.3296/2013
3. The Secretary, Education
Directorate of Education
GNCT of Delhi
Old Secretariat, Delhi
4. The Director of Education
Directorate of Education
GNCT of Delhi
Old Secretariat, Delhi
5. The Regional Director/
Additional Director of Education
District East, Rani Garden
Geeta Colony Delhi-110031
6. The Dy. Director of Education
District North-East
B-Block, Yamuna Vihar
Delhi
7. The Education Officer
Zone-IV, District North-East
Yamuna Vihar, Delhi
..Respondents
(Mr. Vijay Pandita, Advocate)
(E) O.A.No.3296/2013
Smt. Ram Giri Yadav
w/o Sh. R P S Yadav
R/o H.No.35, Krishna Kunj Colony
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092.
..Applicant
(Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate)
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others through
1. The Chief Secretary
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
New Secretariat, IP Estate
New Delhi
2. The Secretary (Education)
Govt. of NCT, New Secretariat
5
O.A.No.946/2014
With
O.A.No.793/2014
O.A.No.1247/2014
O.A.No.1341/2014
O.A.No.3296/2013
IP Estate, New Delhi
3. The Director
Directorate of Education
Govt. of NCT, Old Secretariat
Delhi
4. Deputy Director (Education)
Distt. East, Anand Vihar, Delhi
5. Smt. Durga Dahiya
Govt. Girls, Sr. Sec. School
Jhilmil Colony, Delhi
..Respondents
(Mr. R N Singh, Advocate)
ORDER
Per Sudhir Kumar, Member (A):-
These five cases, with overlapping and similar facts, came to be clubbed together for the purposes of hearing, were heard together, and reserved for orders together, and are, therefore, being disposed off through a common order. After the hearing had been completed, the learned counsel for the applicants had sought permission to submit written submissions on behalf of the applicants of these 5 OAs, which he had filed on 27.01.2016, by dividing the five cases into three portions, whereby making out some distinction between the five cases. We shall, accordingly, deal with them in that manner only.(A) OA No. 946/2014
2. The applicant of this OA is a retired Principal, who had approached this Tribunal by filing this OA on 14.03.2014 because he was aggrieved that the respondents had denied him automatic re-employment w.e.f. 01.02.2014, after he had superannuated on 31.01.2014, as per their 6 O.A.No.946/2014 With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013 Standing Policy in this regard. He had impugned the order of rejection of his re-employment, passed by the respondents on 20.02.2014, relying mainly on the ground of decline in result of the School concerned. Hence this OA.
3. Before the applicant superannuated, he applied for re-employment through his request dated 01.02.2014, and is aggrieved by its rejection because, according to him, the apparent decline in the result of the concerned school was ascribable to various factors, namely shortage of teaching and ministerial staff, location of the school in a resettlement colony, children studying in the school coming from poor families and spending most of their time in contributing to the income of the family, and absence of environment for studies in their families. He has alleged that the ground of rejection on account of decline in result for denying him re-employment is misconceived, as the entire blame of low result has been attributed to him, even without his having been accorded any opportunity of personal audience for facilitating him to apprise the Competent Authority about the reasons leading to decline in result of Class XIIth, which was not at all due to any negligence on his part.
4. Besides this, the applicant had submitted that the students could not be guided properly in two subjects, in English and Economics, because of shortage of staff, and that this fact had been brought to the notice of Zonal & District Authorities by him through submission of periodical vacancy statements, and during the course of occasional 7 O.A.No.946/2014 With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013 meetings held by them. He has submitted that these two subjects were only guided by various Guest Teachers, for various length of time, and the decline in result was only on account of the results in these two subjects coming out to be 41.9% Pass and 44.2% pass. He has submitted that in fact the result of the Academic Session 2012-13 had improved after the Compartment Examination, and that he had even taken Sanskrit classes, in view of shortage of PGT for Sanskrit as well.
5. The applicant is aggrieved that his re-employment was not ordered even though it was recommended by the Education Officer, Zone-VI, who had not found any fault with his work and conduct. He had further submitted that the request submitted by him on 07.03.2014 to the Office of Dy. Director-R-6, has not been considered, and within one week after giving that request, on 14.03.2014 the applicant had approached this Tribunal by filing this OA.
6. The applicant has submitted that neither can responsibility of the Administrative failure of the respondents' department be shifted upon him, when there was shortage of teaching staff, nor do the conditions for re-employment, as per the respondents' Circulars, stipulate anywhere a provision for denial of job on account of low results, the reasons for which cannot be attributed to him. He has submitted that higher enrolment and section-wise distribution of classes had also had an adverse impact, as an impediment, and had impacted teaching of 8 O.A.No.946/2014 With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013 individual students. In the result, he had taken the ground that the benefit of the re-employment order passed by the respondents on 27.01.2012 ought to have been granted to him, and the same submissions, as noted above, were taken thereafter as grounds for filing the OA.
7. It was submitted that attribution for low result to the applicant is unfair, and is an attempt on the part of the respondents to find scapegoat for the failure of the department, when he fulfilled all the eligibility conditions required for re-employment.
8. In Para-6, regarding the details of the remedies exhausted, the applicant had mentioned about his one week old representation dated 07.03.2014 not having been disposed of when he filed this OA on 14.03.2014. In the result, he had prayed for the following reliefs:-
"a. Request for setting aside the rejection/impugned order dated 20.02.2014 vide which re-employment has been denied to the applicant.
b. Direction may kindly be given to the respondents for re-
employment of the applicant with consequential benefits from the date (01.02.2014) when the re-employment became due to the applicant in response to his request dated 10.01.2014 filed with the respondents.
c. Direction may kindly be given to the respondents for any other relief as may deem fit and proper to the Hon'ble Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case".9 O.A.No.946/2014
With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013
9. The respondents filed their counter reply on 16.07.2014. They had cited the Hon'ble Delhi High Court judgment dated 29.04.2011 in the case of Shashi Kohli vs. Director of Education in W.P. (C) No. 4330/2010, in which it was laid down that as per the re-employment Notification dated 28.09.2007, fitness does not mean physical fitness alone, but that it also includes professional fitness, which is required to be assessed by the Dy. Director of Education of the concerned district, and the Hon'ble High Court had further held that the petitioner, therein, had no right for re-employment, and only a right to be considered for such re-employment, and that re-employment can be denied after considering overall performance. They had also sought shelter behind an identical matter, in the case of Surender Kumar Mittal vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, OA No. 661/2012, having been dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dated 31.10.2012, relying upon the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's judgment in the case of Shashi Kohli vs. Director of Education and Anr. (supra).
10. It was further submitted that while for the physical fitness, medical certificate is required from an authorized medical practitioner, however, the professional fitness has to be assessed by the department in respect of the Principal's job on the basis of various parameters. They had, therefore, pointed out the result of the concerned school, which was a steady decline, clearly indicating negligence on the part of the applicant in carrying out the functions assigned to him, and raising a question 10 O.A.No.946/2014 With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013 mark regarding his capability, or the professional fitness, during the period 2010-11 to 2013-14, as shown in the table below:-
Year Class XII
2010-11 83.20
2011-12 67.64
2012-13 56.73
2013-14 47.40
11. It was further submitted that the OA is barred by Sections 19, 20 & 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and is liable to be dismissed with costs.
12. Thereafter, giving Para-wise replies, the respondents had given a lot of details regarding their having provided subject teachers in relevant disciplines, and had stated that in spite of all the circumstances which had been mentioned by the applicant in his OA, the same School had earlier shown Class-XII result upto 83.20% in respect of the year 2010-
11. It was further submitted that even the applicant has nowhere mentioned as to what steps he had taken to improve the results declining over the years. It was submitted that in fact the applicant should have been more devoted in performing his duties towards sensitive children, just because they are coming from poor families. It was denied that the 11 O.A.No.946/2014 With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013 principles of natural justice were violated, as the final decision was taken after considering all the facts and figures. It was further denied that applicant cannot shirk from his responsibility merely because some subjects were left to be taught by Guest Teachers under his supervision. It was submitted that the applicant could neither produce good result, nor bring the matter to the notice of the higher authorities regarding any hurdles in the functioning of the School, and, therefore, he could not be allowed to take such pleas as he had taken in the present OA, and it was submitted that the OA is, therefore, liable to be dismissed with costs.
13. They had filed copies of the judgments of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Shashi Kohli's case (supra), and in Surender Kumar Mittal's case (supra).
14. The applicant filed his rejoinder on 19.08.2014 more or less reiterating the same contentions as made out in the OA. He had reiterated that the respondents have not laid down any criteria/yardstick for assessment of professional fitness, which term is being used for victimizing the applicant for extraneous considerations of caste and of personal dislike. It was submitted that the denial of re-employment, though being a matter of prerogative/discretion, cannot be based on extraneous considerations, giving rise to discrimination under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. He had thereafter cited the cases of some other compatriots of his, who are not party in this OA, in respect of whom, according to him, the respondents had shown leniency in assessment of 12 O.A.No.946/2014 With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013 their work. It was further submitted that through common order in OA Nos. 3967/2013 & 3968/2013 in the case of Ramesh Chand and Har Prasad vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi pronounced on 21.07.2014, it has been held that the respondents have not been able to show as to how the request of the applicants in those two OAs were rejected on certain grounds, while some others, who were in similar position, were given re- employment, and directions had been issued to the respondents to formulate a clear cut policy criteria or guideline for determining the fitness or otherwise of a superannuating candidate for re-employment. He had also cited some other individual cases of persons who are not parties to this bunch of OAs, and, therefore, their cases are not being discussed here. It was reiterated that the background of the students had played a very major role, and the grounds taken by him on the basis of that reason are not flimsy, but are rather cogent and convincing, and even the Education Officer concerned, being abreast of the ground level realities, had recommended his case.
15. It was submitted that it is the duty of both the Zonal as well as District level Officers to know what is going on inside the school. It was submitted that professional fitness of a Principal is not a subject matter to be dealt with separately in isolation, without having regard to the factors which had influenced the result to become poor, and any attempt on the part of the respondents to belie those claims as acts of perversity, and, therefore, it was submitted that the applicant's case is a fit case for 13 O.A.No.946/2014 With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013 the Tribunal to pass orders directing the respondents to offer him re- employment.
16. Certain copies of Note Sheets had been annexed to the rejoinder, without disclosing as to how they had been obtained in an authorized manner, and the common order of the Coordinate Bench dated 21.07.2014 in OA No. 3967/2013 & OA No. 3968/2013 had also been filed, along with some other documents.
(B) OA No.1247/2014
17. Since while filing his written submissions, the case in OA No.1247/2014 had been clubbed by the learned counsel for the applicants with the above discussed OA No.946/2014, we shall try to see the parallels, as well as the differences, if any, in the pleadings of this OA.
18. The applicant of this OA had also been promoted to the post of Principal w.e.f. 25.10.2008 and had worked on that post upto 31.01.2014. Apart from the other facts and grounds in parallel in this case, it was submitted that respondents had failed to take into account the factors of the bifurcation of the School, and division of the existing staff, consequent upon bifurcation into two different schools, leading to shortage not only of PGT level teachers, but also of the overall staff, while the applicant had been left shouldering the responsibilities of both the 14 O.A.No.946/2014 With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013 divided Schools, and he was not provided with any substitute Principal to supervise the work of the transferred teachers. He had submitted that though the subject-wise result of class-XII for the years 2011-12 & 2012- 13 may appear to be less in comparison with the result of the past year, such decline in result cannot be termed as any act of failure or omission on the part of the applicant. It was submitted that being In-charge Principal of both the bifurcated Schools, the applicant of this OA had been working from 7.00 A.M to 7.00 P.M., and still, instead of his being rewarded, he has been denied re-employment. The other pleadings and grounds being similar to the above case, they are not being repeated for the sake of brevity. In the result, the applicant had prayed for the following reliefs:-
Reliefs:
"a) Request for setting aside the rejection/impugned order dt.
30.01.2014 vide which re-employment has been denied to the applicant.
b) Direction may kindly be given to the respondents for re- employment of the applicant with consequential benefits w.e.f. 01.02.2014 i.e. when the applicant became due for re-employment after his retirement on 31.01.2014.
c) Direction may kindly be given to the respondents for any other relief as may deem fit and proper to the Hon'ble Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case."
19. The counter reply of the respondents filed on 10.09.2014 was also similar to the above cited case, apart from some further case law having been added in this counter reply. It was submitted that apart from the cases of Shashi Kohli (supra) decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, 15 O.A.No.946/2014 With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013 and Surender Kumar Mittal (supra) decided by the Tribunal, an identical matter of Mool Chand Dabas vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi in OA No. 1719/2013 had been dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dated 13.01.2014 (Annexure R-3), wherein this Tribunal has upheld that re- employment is not automatic, and it will depend upon fitness and vigilance clearance of the person concerned, and that the respondents are well within their rights not to grant extension to Teacher/Vice- Principal /Principal, if they have found him unfit.
20. The same ground of the OA being barred by Section 19,20 & 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 was taken in this counter reply also. It was further submitted that the applicant of this OA did not take or initiate any concrete steps to have a separate Head of the School for the morning school, and deliberately kept on holding the charge of both the Schools concurrently, in his own interest. He was even directed to look after another School, but since he was enjoying the status of Principal of two Schools, he never opted for the option given to him.
21. It was further submitted that besides 33 regular Teachers, sufficient Guest Teachers had also been supplied to his Schools as per his demand, and when the subject of Economics was taught by the applicant himself, the result for that subject declined by 26% in 2012-13. It was pointed out that the applicant had informed the Department that he himself had taught the students, as they were not satisfied with the 16 O.A.No.946/2014 With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013 Guest Teachers, to which Department had agreed, because top priority is given to 12th class, and result of this class cannot be compromised with. It was submitted that while the applicant could have arranged for extra classes being held for 12th class of his School, he gave his consent that he is holding charge of both the Schools, because of which teaching and studies in his School got affected. It was submitted that even during the examinations, a complaint of mass copying and unfair means was received, so much so that the answer sheet of an examinee was found in the custody of the complainant. Like in the case of the earlier OA, the respondents had submitted that the social environment of the School as the cause of decline of the result could only be taken in the casual manner, since the applicant as the Head of the School was involved in many other works, rather than academic supervision and duties.
22. It was further submitted that the applicant had written numerous complaints, and had even filed a case before this Tribunal as a strategy of blackmail, and then given an undertaking to withdraw on his complaints from all forums, and from this Tribunal, if his grievances are resolved by the respondents by providing him the benefits of re- employment. It was submitted that none of the grounds support the case of the applicant, and the OA is, therefore, liable to be dismissed with costs.
17O.A.No.946/2014
With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013
23. The applicant filed his rejoinder on 27.10.2014 with numerous Annexures, including some photocopies of file notings, without explaining as to how he had lawfully obtained them. In this, he had more or less reiterated his contentions as made out in the OA, which we have already discussed in detail above. He had tried to prove the inadequacy of staff through the RTI reply obtained by him, and had tried to place reliance upon the cases of some other named teachers, in whose cases the re-employment had been accorded, but who were not parties in the present OA, and, therefore, we shall not discuss their cases. It was further submitted that the decision of making a particular School as Centre for some external examination was not taken by him, but was the result of a team of officers, stating once again that he had repeatedly pointed out lack of teaching staff, and had, therefore, prayed for the OA to be allowed.
(C ) OA No.1341/2014
24. This OA had also been clubbed with OA No.946/2014 & OA No.1247/14 while filing written submissions. Therefore, this case is being discussed soon after the other two similar cases.
25. The applicant of this OA also retired as a Principal on 31.03.2012 and had thereafter filed this OA on 16.04.2014, more than two years after his retirement on superannuation, and after even the expiry of the period of two years for which he had sought such re-employment, since the OA itself was filed after he had attained the age of 62 years. Also, it 18 O.A.No.946/2014 With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013 was not as if he had not been allowed any re-employment whatsoever. He was initially allowed re-employment for one year, which was extendable for another year, based on his performance, and subject to fitness and vigilance clearance. He is only aggrieved as to why his re- employment was terminated, and was not continued for the second year, upto his attaining the age of 62 years. He has submitted that his name had been recommended by the Zonal Education Officer, and, therefore, he was shocked when he had received the impugned order dated 06.08.2013, denying him extension of his re-employment for the permissible second year. He has alleged that this action of the respondents was taken midway in the second year of his re-employment, since the Academic Session of 2013-14 had already commenced on 01.04.2013, and he had even attended the meeting of the Principals of South District held in the month of June-2013, at which meeting he had submitted a consolidated result analysis for Class XI & XII Arts stream for the years 2011-12 and 2012-13.
26. After receipt of the impugned order dated 06.08.2013, by which he stood relieved, the applicant represented on 30.08.2013, and tried to ascertain the reasons for the respondents having passed the impugned order. He then learnt that there was a deviation in results of Class-XII for the Academic Session of 2012-13 in many Schools, and such deviation varied from 10.15% to 43.04% in various Schools. It was submitted that while negative variation could be pointed out in respect of 19 O.A.No.946/2014 With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013 certain teachers, their services were not terminated by the respondents, and they were allowed to continue to function, and were only transferred to some other Schools. In order to buttress his submissions, he has submitted a result analysis in respect of Hindi Subject, which he was teaching for Class-XI & XII for the years 2011-12 and 2012-13 to the respondents.
27. However, the second impugned order dated 19.02.2014 (Annexure A-5) merely stated that the Competent Authority had considered his application for extension of re-employment, and the same had been rejected. He has submitted that it was most shocking that this communication did not mention any grounds or reasons for rejecting his appeal/representation by the so-called Competent Authority, and that he has not even aware as to which authority had, in fact, taken a decision upon his appeal/representation. He has submitted that such rejection suffers from the vice of not mentioning of any reasons, and being non- speaking, which has deprived him from analyzing and considering the grounds/reasons on the basis of which the order had been passed.
28. He, however, again represented to the Director of Education, through Annexure A-32 dated 28.02.2014, but that did not elicit any response, leading him to file this OA on 16.04.2014.
29. The applicant has taken the grounds that the impugned orders dated 06.08.2013 and 19.02.2014 are mala fide, and arbitrary, and 20 O.A.No.946/2014 With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013 violative of the principles of Article-14 of the Constitution, and are unsustainable in law, and that they are highly discriminatory, and the applicant being a Member of the SC Community, he has been picked up, and his services have been terminated. He has alleged that after completion of the first year of his re-employment, he was allowed to continue to function till 06.08.2013, and the impugned order was passed only midway of the Academic Session of 2nd year of his re-employment, which shows that respondents had acted with malafide intention, and with arbitrary and discriminatory approach, since they very much knew the result immediately at the end of the Academic Session 2012-13, but neither any action was taken immediately, nor any opportunity was given to him to try to explain the deviation in the result.
30. It was submitted that the respondents have thus deviated from their own policy for providing re-employment upto the age of 62 years, and that since no appropriate action was taken at the end of academic year 2012-13, that too till 06.08.2013, his re-employed services ought to have been deemed to have been continued for the full second year, upto his attaining the age of 62 years. He had further taken the ground that even his appeal/representation was not considered in the right perspective, and it was rejected after six months, through the second impugned order dated 19.02.2014, that too without assigning any reasons. He had further taken the ground that the respondents have ignored the fact that there had been absence of regular teaching staff 21 O.A.No.946/2014 With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013 during the academic year 2012-13, and as many as 9 Guest Teachers of various subjects had been engaged, and, therefore, the entire responsibility for fall in percentage of Class XII result could not have been fastened upon him alone.
31. The applicant has taken the further ground that there is not even an iota of mention in the impugned order dated 06.08.2013 as to how and in what manner he had failed to exercise overall control on the School and the staff on the administrative side. He has submitted that other Principals/Vice-Principals, in whose cases also there were deviations in result, in comparison to previous years, had only been transferred from one School to another, and several had been allowed to continue to be re-employed in the second year, but he had been picked up for being treated differently only because of his being a Member of SC Community. He had, therefore, assailed the action of the respondents as being against the recommendation and certification made by the Education Officer concerned, and had prayed for the following reliefs:-
"a) declare that the impugned orders dated 06.08.2013 and 19.02.2014 are untenable, illegal and non-est apart from being malafide, discriminatory and arbitrary and hence are liable to be quashed.
b) declare that the action of the respondent in passing the impugned order dated 06.08.2013 and 19.02.2014 are totally malafide, arbitrary and discriminatory on account of the violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, having been passed midway during the currency of the second year of re-employment;22 O.A.No.946/2014
With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013
c) Declare that the applicant is entitled to and has so continued to be in the re-employment of the respondent for the second year of the academic sessions 2013-14 and till the applicant had attained the superannuation at the age of 62 years and is also entitled to all the financial benefits for the period from 06.08.2013 to 15.03.2014;
d) pass any other order or any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the applicant;
e) Grant cost of the proceedings in favour of the
applicants."
32. Respondents filed their counter reply on 17.10.2014, once again seeking shelter behind the case of Shashi Kohli (supra) decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, and Surender Kumar Mittal (supra) decided by this Tribunal on 31.10.2012. They had also taken a preliminary objection regarding applicant's professional fitness, and the OA being barred by Section 19.20 & 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. They had submitted that though the applicant had been allowed to join re-employment for the first year, and he had applied for continuation of re-employment for the second year, for the next Academic Session 2013- 14 also, but his case had been rejected on the ground of poor result, and sharp decline in CBSE Class XII result, which was 87.5% in 2010-11, 72% in 2011-12, but during the period of the applicant's re-employment in the Academic Session 2012-13 it had declined to 41.99%, with negative deviation of -30%, which led the respondents to conclude that the applicant is professionally unfit, and, therefore, the extension of his re-employment as a Principal was rejected for the second year. 23 O.A.No.946/2014
With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013
33. It was pointed out that after his representation to the Director of Education had been rejected through the second impugned order dated 19.02.2014, the applicant had even approached the SC/ST Commission, which had issued a Summon dated 05.05.2014, and the case was still pending before the SC/ST Commission for the same cause of action, in spite of the applicant having already approached this Tribunal through this OA.
34. It was submitted that the applicant has concealed this fact from this Tribunal that he had actually approached the SC/ST Commission even prior to filing of this OA. It was, therefore, submitted that the averments made by the applicant in this OA are wrong.
35. Thereafter the respondents had offered para-wise replies to the OA, and had pointed out that several inspections had been held but the applicant did not bother to correct the deficiencies as the Principal of the School. It was submitted that all the relevant records regarding the matter of the applicant have already been submitted to the SC/ST Commission, in response to the summons received from there. It was further submitted that there was no question of the applicant having been picked up for such discontinuation of re-employment for the year 2012-13 & 2013-14, as, on the same issue of lack of professional fitness, seven applications of Principals/Vice-Principals had been rejected, out of 24 O.A.No.946/2014 With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013 which 04 were General Category, 02 SC and 01 ST in the South District alone, and any discrimination on the basis of the caste was denied.
36. It was pointed out that the post of all teachers were filled in the concerned School either on regular/ad-hoc, or Guest Teacher or Contract Teacher basis, by providing 81 teachers in the concerned School in this manner. Thereafter, the respondents had discussed the cases of other Principals, whose names had been pointed out by the applicant, but since they are not parties in this OA, we are not discussing the facts of their cases.
37. It was submitted that all Head of Schools were given re- employment at first, irrespective of their caste and creed, and the applications of those Principals, who had poor professional fitness, had been rejected by the Competent Authority. It was submitted that there is no automatic continuity of re-employment for the second year, as re- employment is only extendable to the second year after one year after assessing the professional fitness, and that his appeal had been rejected only because of his poor performance as Principal and HOS, and because he was found wanting in various inspections carried out by the Directorate of Education during the year 2012-13, and he had failed to take any interest to extract work from the 81 teachers under his control. It was, therefore, submitted that the applicant does not have any cause of action, and does not have even a prima-facie case to seek any relief 25 O.A.No.946/2014 With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013 from this Tribunal, and the O.A. is, therefore, liable to be dismissed, because the respondents have strictly adhered to and complied with the policy regarding extension of re-employment in the case of the applicant.
38. The applicant filed his rejoinder on 15.12.2014. It was submitted that the respondents have not disputed that many similarly placed persons were given continued re-employment, without raising any issue regarding percentage of result of their School. It was submitted that the Competent Authority was actually conscious of the fact that the result of a particular class of the School is not dependant on one factor, and, therefore, no Teacher or Principal can be held individually responsible and punished, but only in the case of the applicant, the result has been made the basis to defend the illegal action of the respondents of denying him continuation of his re-employment.
39. It was submitted that the factual issues and legal proposition involved in the cases of Shashi Kohli (supra) decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, and Surender Kumar Mittal (supra) decided by this Tribunal, were distinguishable, both on the basis of factual issues and the legal proposition involved therein, and the respondents cannot be allowed to take advantage of those two decisions, and the applicant's case is required to be decided on its own merits.
26O.A.No.946/2014
With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013
40. It was submitted that the respondents had wrongly applied the proposition of professional fitness of the applicant not being up to the mark to deal with his case in an arbitrary manner, which is violative of his fundamental right. It was further submitted that it has not been elucidated as to how the present OA is barred under Sections 19, 20 & 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and as to how the present OA is an abuse of the process of law.
41. It was further submitted that the applicant had explained to the department that he was not exclusively responsible for the decline of the result, and that there were other factors which were responsible, and the respondents have also not disputed that the applicant had made a representation against the rejection of his request for extension, and the applicant had not received any rejection letter till the date of filing of the present OA. It was submitted that filing of representation before SC/ST Commission has got nothing to do with the exclusive jurisdiction of this Tribunal, and the objection in this regard is highly preposterous, vague and frivolous, because the requirement under the Act is only in respect of filing of any application or petition before any other Court or Bench of the Tribunal, and the pendency thereof.
42. It was submitted that the averments made in the OA have not been specifically denied by the respondents, and it was vehemently refuted that any deficiencies were brought to his notice, and he did not bother to 27 O.A.No.946/2014 With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013 correct those deficiencies, despite having been warned. It was submitted that the copies of the reports which are now being relied upon by the respondents have either been fabricated, or otherwise improvised, because neither of these reports bear signatures of the applicant, nor copies of such reports have been provided to him, and no reliance can be placed upon this kind of records. It was submitted that the applicant has already explained the reasons for the same, and in any case such decline in result cannot lead to the conclusion that the applicant was lacking any responsibility of teaching in the School. It was submitted that the applicant had discharged his duties with sincerity and devotion, and had taken all possible steps required to be taken by him to improve the teaching, and ensuring presence of teachers in the classes.
43. It was submitted that decline or decrease in overall result of Class- XII had been made the basis for refusing extension of re-employment only in the case of the applicant, and not in other cases, which goes to show the arbitrariness and discrimination, and that the applicant cannot be punished on account of performance of the students and the overall result of the school, and even the respondents have got no clear policy for grant or refusal of the re-employment, and extension of re- employment in such cases. It was pointed out that in many similarly placed Schools, there was deviation in results, and yet the re-employed Principals of those Schools have been given extension for the second year. The delay and then taking the decision in the middle of the year to 28 O.A.No.946/2014 With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013 curtail his re-employment was again assailed by the applicant. It was submitted that the pendency of any proceedings before SC/ST Commission have got no bearing upon the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
44. It was further submitted that the respondents had nowhere prescribed or issued any guidelines that the HOS should monitor the Guest Teachers, or shown that the applicant had not taken any interest in their respective subjects. Many other pleadings were repeated and need not be reproduced here once again. It was, therefore, pleaded that this OA may be allowed, in the interest of justice.
(D) OA No.793/2014
45. This OA had also been filed because the respondents had passed the rejection order dated 13.02.2014 for extension of applicant's re- employment for the second year w.e.f. 01.02.2014. The applicant had retired on 31.01.2013, and had been re-employed for one year, which was extendable for another one year, based on his performance, and subject to fitness and vigilance clearance, till he had attained 62 years of age. The applicant had submitted his request for extension of his re- employment within time, and according to him when the file was put up, it was accompanied with the requisite papers regarding vigilance clearance, and yet his case for continuation of re-employment was rejected.
29O.A.No.946/2014
With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013
46. It was submitted that one of the retiral benefits of the applicant had remained unpaid after his scheduled retirement on superannuation on 31.01.2013, which related to the Central Government Employees' Group Insurance Scheme (CGEGIS, in short). It was pointed out that during his substantive tenure as Principal, less deduction of Rs.60/- from 03.05.2007 to 31.01.2013 had been made, as against the required deduction of Rs.120/-. When this objection was raised, the applicant had deposited the shortfall amount of Rs.3660/- through a Challan, in order to get the objection for release of the savings part of the CGEGIS removed. However, this had been misconstrued by the Dy. Director of Education, North East/Respondent No.6 as an act in violation of absolute integrity on the part of the applicant, as had been tried to be made out in the warning letter issued to him through letter dated 04.01.2014. The applicant has submitted that if there had been any mala fide intention on his part, he would not have deposited the requisite amount of Rs.3660/- through Challan. He had submitted that his performance in the School where he was posted had been consistent, which speaks volumes about his excellent performance, covering all aspects from Administrative to Academic to Cultural etc. It was submitted that such a steady and continuous progress cannot be termed as an achievement by fluke, and was the result of the constant untiring endeavour made by the applicant.
30O.A.No.946/2014
With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013
47. It was submitted that the respondents had taken untenable ground on the basis of connivance between Respondent No.R-6 and one Enquiry Officer Shri Dinesh Kumar, Zone-IV, now retired on 31.01.2014, who happens to be the neighbour of the applicant, and who, out of jealousy, had played a part in depriving the applicant of the extension of his re- employment for another year, which became due to him w.e.f. 01.02.2014. It was submitted that the warning letter dated 04.01.2014 (Annexure A-5) was not a statutory penalty, and cannot be used as a weapon against him for denying him the right for re-employment for the second year.
48. He had taken the ground that on the basis of his performance, he was eligible for re-employment even for the second year in succession, and that he had been deprived of his re-employment with malafide intention, without taking into account the fact that he had made good the shortfall in CGEGIS amount deductions, and that even if that act of depositing an amount of Rs.3660/-, belatedly be assumed as a wrong act, it cannot obscure all his achievements. Thereafter, he had made allegations against his neighbour, but since he has not named him as a private party-respondent, we need not take cognizance of the same. In the result, the applicant had prayed for the following reliefs:-
"a) Request for setting aside the rejection/impugned order dt. 13.02.2014 for extension of re-employment for the second year to the post of Principal.31 O.A.No.946/2014
With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013
b) Direction may kindly be given to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for extension of re-
employment for another year commencing w.e.f.
01.02.2014.
c) Direction for release of CGEIS to the applicant without
further delay with interest accruable for the delay period @ interest admissible on P.F. accumulations.
d) Any other order as may deem fit and proper may also be passed in the facts and circumstances of the case."
49. The respondents filed their counter reply on 16.07.2014 pointing out that in the case of Shashi Kohli (supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has already held that fitness does not mean physical fitness alone, but it also includes professional fitness for consideration of the cases of Teachers/Principals/Vice-Principals for re-employment. They had again pointed out this Tribunal's order in the case of Surender Kumar Mittal (supra). Thereafter reliance had further been placed on the order passed in Jai Prakash vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi on 28.10.2013 in OA No.509/2013 relying upon the above two cases. It was submitted that the same cases had been followed in the order in the case of Mool Chand Dabas vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi in OA No.1719/2013 vide order dated 13.01.2014 also.
50. It was further submitted that the applicant in this OA has prayed for plural remedies, and, therefore, the OA is not maintainable in view of Rule-10 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, relating to plural remedies. It was further submitted that the instant 32 O.A.No.946/2014 With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013 case is barred by Sections-19, 20 & 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and, is, therefore, liable to be dismissed, as it is an abuse of process of law.
51. As regards the claim of the applicant in respect of CGEGIS, it was submitted that the applicant had already submitted a claim for the insurance amount, and only when the Accounts Officer asked for proof of deductions, it was found that he had not paid the required amount of CGEGIS contributions. Thereafter, the applicant had deposited the balance contribution, after the objection had been raised, and much after his retirement, without any approval of the Competent Authority, which brought the matter under focus of doubtful integrity, as ignorance of Rule is no excuse in service matters.
52. Thereafter the respondents had cited several instances in which the present applicant had acted in gross violation of financial and administrative Rules. It was pointed out that apart from the warning issued to the applicant through Annexure R-6 dated 04.01.2014, earlier also he had been issued a recordable warning dated 31.01.2009, for his having accepted the technical resignation of a TGT, and relieving him, without the approval of the Competent Authority. It was further pointed out that the applicant had done his pay fixation himself in his service book after his selection through UPSC, and he had even been signing approvals for his annual increments in the Service Book, and he had 33 O.A.No.946/2014 With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013 even tried to avail LTC advance withdrawal without approval of the Competent Authority, and when the PAO raised objections, he withdrew his claim. It was further submitted that even after having filed the present OA on 28.02.2014, the applicant had sent a letter to the National Commission for SCs/STs on 26.03.2014 making allegations against Senior Officers, and charging them with biased approach and casteism. It was, therefore, submitted that the order of rejection of continuation of his re-employment had been passed by the Competent Authority correctly, on the ground of lack of proper work and conduct, and doubtful integrity, since as a result of overall assessment of his fitness, his performance was not found satisfactory.
53. It was submitted that the applicant has no cause of action or even a prima-facie case to seek any relief from this Tribunal, and, therefore, the OA is liable to be dismissed. The respondents had, apart from filing copies of the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Shashi Kohli (supra), and the Coordinate Bench order of this Tribunal in Surender Kumar Mittal (supra), filed copies of the orders of this Tribunal passed on 19.09.2013 in CP No. 399/2013 in OA No.3983/2011 in the case of Shiv Kumar Kaushik vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., with which case the applicant of this OA had dealt with in the Note Sheet file pages produced by the respondents as Annexure R-4, to try to show some wrong doing on the part of the applicant in the case of said Shiv Kumar Kaushik (supra).
34O.A.No.946/2014
With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013
54. The respondents had also brought on record through Annexure R-5 the Memorandum issued to the applicant on 05.08.2013 in regard to his having suo motu deposited certain amounts as belated contribution to CGEGIS, after his retirement, on the basis of which he had been issued warning dated 04.01.2014 (Annexure A-5). They had also enclosed copies of the Office Orders issued by him in his own case, and the fixation of pay and annual increment orders in his own case, as passed by him, and recorded by him in the Service Book himself, in order to be able to make out a case of doubtful integrity. They had also filed certain papers relating to LTC to J&K availed of by the applicant, again to try to show the tendency on the part of the applicant for financial irregularities.
55. The applicant filed a rejoinder on 01.08.2014, more or less reiterating his contentions as made out in the OA, and contesting that the provision for re-employment after retirement gives any right to the respondents to assess the eligibility and the fitness on the basis of cases/references related to the distant/remote past, which were not even under consideration at the time of initially providing re-employment to him for the first year.
56. It was submitted that the Respondent No.6 had not commented anything as regards ineligibility of the applicant for extension of his case for re-employment for the second year, but had then, thereafter, acted 35 O.A.No.946/2014 With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013 only as an afterthought, on extraneous considerations of caste based discrimination against the applicant. He had thereafter explained circumstances in which he had deposited the balance amount of his contribution for CGEGIS, and submitted that if depositing the shortfall amount without a written approval of the Competent Authority was so serious, he should not have been allowed to continue his re-employment period even for the first year for about six months thereafter. It was submitted that the issues and warning dated 04.01.2014 could not have been used to deprive him of the continuation of his re-employment.
57. It was further submitted that there is no bar for the applicant for recording his pay fixation and increment in the service book, and the respondents have not adduced any evidence to show that he had indulged in any extra payments being made to him on such account. The LTC claim case also was similarly tried to be explained away, and allegations of conspiracy against him were repeated. It was, therefore, prayed that an order should be passed by this Tribunal extending the benefit of re-employment to him for the second year also, along with consequential benefits, and early release of the saving component of CGEGIS, which had not been paid to him till then.
58. During arguments, learned counsel for the applicant had taken us through the documents as referred to in the OA, while learned counsel for the respondents had relied upon the Hon'ble Delhi High Court 36 O.A.No.946/2014 With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013 judgment in W.P.(C) No. 822/2014 dated 17.09.2014 C.K.P. Naidu vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. along with connected Writ Petitions, and had emphasized on Paragraphs 8.9 & 14 of the said judgment in particular.
(E) OA No.3296/2013
59. The applicant had filed this OA on 18.09.2013, aggrieved by the respondents not having allowed him re-employment for another year, claiming that she was entitled to be re-employed for two years after her retirement, as per the policy of the respondents in this regard. The applicant had superannuated as a Vice-Principal on 31.08.2012. As she had requested for such re-employment even before the date of her superannuation, through order dated 03.09.2012, she was re-employed as Vice-Principal for one year, and she joined on 07.09.2013. The applicant has submitted that she was assigned the duties of DDO, and in February 2013, she was asked by Respondent No.R-5 to sign certain bills, and when she asked for physical verification of the goods for which the bill was prepared, Respondent No.R-5 took it otherwise, and issued her a Memorandum dated 14.03.2013 (Annexure A-3). The applicant replied to the same on 16.03.2013 through Annexure A-4, insisting that it is her moral and legal duty to verify the items purchased under the Yuva Plan Fund before putting her signatures on the relevant bills.
60. The Respondent No.R-5, the Principal of the School, thereafter made a complaint against her to the Education Officer, who also issued 37 O.A.No.946/2014 With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013 to her a Memorandum dated 19.03.2013 (Annexure A-5) on the same ground. The applicant replied to the same on 21.03.2013 through Annexure A-6. The applicant has submitted that, thereafter, when she fell ill in the month of August 2013, and had to be absent for about a week, and later tried to re-join her duties on 16.08.2013, she was not even allowed to sign the attendance register. She represented to the Deputy Director of Education, East District, Anand Vihar, Delhi, on 19.08.2013 in this regard, through Annexure A-8, and since she was still not allowed to sign the register on 21.08.2013 also, she again represented to the Education Officer, Zone-1, Anand Vihar, Delhi through Annexure A-9 dated 21.08.2013. Since the first year of her re- employment was coming to an end on 31.08.2013, she submitted another application in terms of the earlier order of re-employment, praying for her to be allowed to continue to be re-employed for another year, subject to vigilance clearance etc.
61. When she was not allowed to sign the attendance register on 22.08.2013, the same day she made another complaint on 22.08.2013 to the Regional Director of Education (East). She also represented to the Director of Education on 23.08.2013 through Annexure A-14, as well as to the Principal through Annexure A-15, seeking to know the reasons in writing for the Principal not forwarding her application seeking continuation of re-employment, and for not having allowed her to sign even the attendance sheet. The applicant was again constrained to make 38 O.A.No.946/2014 With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013 a representation to the Principal on 24.08.2013 through Annexure A-16, and to the Education officer, Zone-1 against the Principal on 26.08.2013 through Annexure A-17.
62. Thereafter, feeling frustrated, and being in a disturbed state of mind, she gave a representation to the Principal on 27.08.2013 tendering her resignation, and withdrawing her re-employment application, in protest against the illegal acts of the Principal. However, later she again decided to fight against illegal acts of senior officers, and submitted an application dated 29.08.2013 to withdraw her resignation through Annexure A-19. After all this, the application of her resignation was permitted to be withdrawn by the respondents, and the applicant was allowed to sign on the attendance register, as per written orders of the Principal issued on 27.08.2013. Accordingly, she could sign on the attendance register on 27.08.2013, 29.08.2013, 30.08.2013 and 31.08.2013. However, no action was taken by the respondents to process her application for continuation of her re-employment, and, thereafter, though the applicant did not stop going to School, but the Principal, Private Respondent R-5, did not even allow the applicant to enter the staff room. It was at that stage that the present O.A. had been filed by the applicant on 18.09.2013.
63. Through an MA No.2797/2013, the applicant brought certain more facts on record, through Paragraphs 4.14 to 4.18, which MA was allowed, 39 O.A.No.946/2014 With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013 and the said Paragraphs were taken on record. She had also amended the grounds portion of the OA through that MA, and introduced additional grounds from Q to Z, and had added additional prayers in the prayer clause at Para-8 (vi) and (vii) through that MA.
64. It was alleged through this MA that the respondents had, in a mala fide manner, rejected her claim for continuation of her re-employment vide order dated 30.09.2013, after her OA had been filed on 18.09.2013, and since the order had been passed during the pendency of the present OA, therefore, the same required to be challenged by way of making amendments in the OA.
65. In the newly introduced Paragraphs 4.14 to 4.18, it was alleged that the file regarding her request for extension was not sent by the said Principal, just to ensure that she does not get extension of her re- employment like all other teachers, and had submitted that she could not be denied such extension by the respondents by passing a stigmatic and punitive order, when no enquiry had been conducted, and no opportunity of hearing had been provided to her. She submitted that she had already pointed out to the higher authorities, including Respondent No.4, that Respondent No.5 was biased against her, and had not allowed her even to mark attendance in the Attendance Register, and could not be expected to give a fair report with regard to her performance. It was submitted that it has been wrongly stated that she had left the school 40 O.A.No.946/2014 With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013 premises on 28.03.2013 and 29.08.2013 without informing the HOS, and in fact she had not been allowed to mark her attendance by the Principal R-5, and only after the intervention of higher authorities, she was allowed to mark her attendance on 31.08.2013. It was submitted that when her work and conduct report had remained above board for more than 30 long years, it could not have turned back for a few days, just after joining of the Private Respondent R-5 as Principal.
66. It was submitted that the applicant had denied to sign the bills which had been prepared without following due procedure, as she had not been allowed to verify the items purchased, and could not have been forced by the Principal R-5 to sign the bills as the DDO. It was also submitted that all the other disbursal orders had been generated by her as the DDO in a timely manner, and when it was clear that she had submitted her Half Pay Leave Application from 06.08.2013, it was wrong on the part of respondents to allege that she had changed the date from 06.05.2013 to 06.08.2013.
67. She had claimed that her performance as a teacher has been excellent all along, and she had taken all the classes regularly, and performed all other duties and responsibilities assigned to her efficiently, and had submitted that extension under the re-employment Scheme cannot be made dependent upon the mercy of the Principal of the School. Further, in the new grounds Q to Z, she had taken the grounds that the 41 O.A.No.946/2014 With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013 impugned order dated 30.09.2013 passed after filing of the OA is stigmatic, and that Respondent No.5 was biased against her, which she had brought to the notice of the Dy. Director, Regional Director & Director Education, and that even in the internal enquiry conducted by the respondents' own officials, she had been found to be innocent, that her past work and conduct had not been taken into account, and no warning had ever been issued to her, and that Private Respondent No.R- 5 had become biased against her only when she had declined to sign bills prepared without verification of the items.
68. She had further taken the ground that she had never been issued even a Memorandum in her whole service career, and that she had been denied continuation of her re-employment merely on the basis of the report of the Principal R-5, and that it has been wrongly mentioned that her work and conduct was not up to the mark. She had further taken the ground that passing of an order one month after the expiry of her initial re-employment period is sufficient to prove the arbitrariness on the part of the respondents, and that if her work and conduct report had remained bad, she would have been denied such extension by passing such an order even before expiry of the initial period of her re- employment. She had further taken the ground that mala fide on the part of the Principal R-5 has been proved from the fact that when her case for grant of re-employment was considered on the work and conduct report given by the Enquiry Officer, she was found fit, and subsequently, 42 O.A.No.946/2014 With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013 only on the basis of the report given by the Principal R-5, her claim had been rejected. In the result she had prayed for the reliefs and added Paragraph-8 (vi) and Paragraph-8 (vii) to the prayer clauses of the OA as follows:-
"(i) to declare the said action of the respondents in not extending the re-employment of applicant as arbitrary and illegal.
(ii) to direct the respondents to give re-employments to the applicant for another year w.e.f. 01.09.2013 till the completion of 62 years (now 65 years) of age with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay.
(iii) To direct the respondents to extend the benefits of decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No.4703/2011 & 2402/2011.
(iv) To allow the OA with cost.
(v) to pass any such other order as this Hon'ble Tribunal
may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case."
(vi) to quash and set aside the impugned order dated
30.09.2013.
(vii) to reinstate the applicant in service with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay with 18% interest".
69. The respondents filed their reply to the MA for amendment of the OA on 19.12.2013. They had pointed out the relevant facts, as already mentioned in the detailed speaking order dated 30.09.2013, which had been reproduced, and through which, in Para-4 (a), (b), (c), and in Para-6 of their speaking order, in particular, the respondents had pointed out 43 O.A.No.946/2014 With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013 the specific aberrations on the part of the applicant, which had not been adverted to by her in the OA. Thereafter, in Para-wise remarks on the MA, the allegation of the respondents having acted in a pre-determined manner for rejecting the applicant's claim for extension of her re- employment was denied, and it was submitted that such an order, rejecting the claim for continuation of her re-employment is neither stigmatic nor punitive in nature, and is based only upon the assessment of the professional competence of the person concerned. It was further submitted that the applicant had failed to corroborate her allegations of mala fide against the HOS R-5, and the applicant's submissions regarding Para-2 & 4 (a) of the impugned order dated 30.09.2013 were denied. It was thereafter prayed that none of the grounds raised by her to support her prayers, and, therefore, the OA deserves to be dismissed, and the detailed speaking order dated 30.09.2013 deserves to be upheld.
70. However, through order dated 19.12.2013, the amendment as prayed for in the OA through the M.A. No.2797/2013 was allowed, and the applicant was directed to file an amended OA within two weeks, which the applicant had in fact already filed on 03.10.2013, along with the MA.
71. The respondents then filed their detailed reply to that amended OA on 08.05.2014. They had taken a preliminary objection that a similar and identical matter had been dismissed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Shashi Kohli vs. Director of Education (supra), laying down the law 44 O.A.No.946/2014 With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013 that fitness does not mean physical fitness alone, but also includes professional fitness, which is necessarily required to be assessed, and that nobody has any right to be re-employed compulsorily, and the right is only for being considered for such re-employment. Relying upon the above judgment, and the order of this Tribunal in OA No.661/2012 Surender Kumar Mittal vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (supra), the respondents had submitted that the OA is barred by limitation, and by Sections 19, 20 & 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and is liable to be dismissed. The same impugned order was again reproduced, as well as the replies filed to the MA, as mentioned above. It was submitted that the applicant had been lethargic in discharging her duties as DDO by not signing the bills in the months of February/March, when the funds were about to lapse, and had unnecessarily taken objections regarding measures taken for the welfare of the School, as later on the same bills were signed by her, without showing any disagreement, or insisting on physical verification of goods, as has been submitted by her in the OA as an excuse for covering her delaying tactics. The averment regarding the applicant having re-joined the office on 16.08.2013 was further denied as being incorrect, since the period of her initial re- employment had expired on 09.08.2013, counting of the period of one year from her date of birth.
72. It was further pointed out that the applicant had first tendered her resignation on 27.08.2013, and then sought its withdrawal on 45 O.A.No.946/2014 With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013 29.08.2013, which shows her erratic behaviour. It was further submitted that the HOS was right in not allowing the applicant to mark her attendance after the expiry of her first re-employment period, without issuance of any further formal orders for the next re-employment tenure. The other submissions were the same as in the reply to the MA, and need not be reproduced once again. It was, therefore, prayed that the OA has to be dismissed with costs, as the applicant is not entitled to any relief.
73. The applicant filed her rejoinder more or less reiterating her contentions as made out in the OA. It was submitted that her case is distinguishable from the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Shashi Kohli vs. Director of Education and Anr. (supra), and that this Tribunal has also not laid down any principles, and, therefore, both the above judgment and order, as referred to by the respondents, were stated to be distinguishable. It was denied that the applicant only has a right of her case being considered, and shelter had been sought from the judgment in the case of Union of India vs. K.V. Jankiraman (1991) 4 SCC 109 that the right of consideration means fair consideration and not biased consideration, as has been done in her case. It was submitted that Hon'ble Apex Court has held in the case of Dalbir Singh vs. State of Punjab (1979) 3 SCC 745 that only the ratio decidendi has a precedent value, and, therefore, the principles of law have to be elicited from any judgment before applying it to any case.
46O.A.No.946/2014
With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013
74. The allegation regarding her not having signed the bills as DDO was denied, and it was pointed out that she was DDO & HOS till R-5 was not declared the HOS and DDO. It was submitted that the respondents have nowhere faulted the applicant as having been wrong in asking for physical verification of the goods, in respect of which the bills had been raised, and had to be signed. It was explained that the applicant tendered her resignation only in view of the harassment caused to her, as a protest, and, therefore, she was justified in withdrawing the same.
75. It was further contended that re-employment period of the applicant would have expired on 31.08.2013, and not on 09.08.2013, as claimed by the respondents. It was further submitted that though the applicant had submitted her application for extension of re-employment well within time, the order of its rejection was kept secret for more than one month. It was further submitted that R-5 had joined on 19.11.2013, but had actually started discharging her duties as HOS only from 01.01.2014, and, therefore, it cannot be said that R-5 had had sufficient time to supervise her work, and it was strange that instead of taking action against R-5, the respondents are harassing the applicant. It was, therefore, prayed that the OA be allowed.
76. Another separate rejoinder had been filed by her on 12.08.2014 to the separate counter reply filed by R-5, in which more or less the same contentions had been repeated. It was submitted that R-5 was determined to block the applicant's extension, and that the applicant had 47 O.A.No.946/2014 With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013 been given re-employment upto 31.08.2013, and not upto the date of birth, as wrongly claimed by R-5, and the result of the School had actually improved. Some other specific details regarding the Memorandum issued to her were thereafter explained by the applicant, and it was prayed that the OA may be allowed.
77. As mentioned above also, the learned counsel for the applicants in these five connected OAs had filed three separate written submissions on behalf of the applicants on 27.01.2016. The first written submissions were common to the first three OAs, i.e., in OAs No.1247/2014, 946/2014 & 1341/2014, another set of written submissions were filed only in respect of the 4th OA No.793/2014, and the third set of written submissions were in respect of the 5th OA No.3296/2013, because of the slight distinctions in the issues involved in these cases.
78. In the written submissions in respect of first three cases, it was pointed out that all the three applicants had been denied re-employment on the ground that there was decrease in the percentage of Class XII result, and the applicants' contention was that decreasing percentage of result was never made the basis to determine the entitlement of a Principal for re-employment, as numerous Principals had been given such re-employment, in spite of drastic decrease in result of their Schools. It was further submitted that this Tribunal has in its order dated 21.07.2014 in the case of Ramesh Chand and Har Prasad vs. 48 O.A.No.946/2014 With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013 Govt. of NCT of Delhi (supra) held that rejecting cases for re- employment on the ground of decrease in percentage of result cannot be said to be justified. Thereafter the individual facts in respect of three connected cases were once again reiterated, which have already been discussed in detail above.
79. Protection had been sought from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's judgments in the case of Jawahar Singh Tomar vs. Director of Education & Ors. dated 21.05.2014 in WP (C) No.1973/2012, and in WP (C) No. 2677/2012 Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. vs. Mithilesh Swamy, and in WP (C) No. 5808/2010 MCD vs. Giriraj Sharma & Ors., and Contempt case No.312/2013 Rajesh Kumar vs. Diwan Chand & Ors. in which grant of back wages/remuneration had been sanctioned, which order had been implemented by the respondents, and the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in Kusheshwar Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (2007) 11 SCC 447, in which it was held that nobody can be permitted to take undue and unfair advantage of his own wrong. Further shelter had been sought behind the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in Mrutunjay Pani & Anr. vs. Narmada Bala Sasmal & Another (1962) 1 SCR 290, wherein it was held that where an obligation is cast on the party, and he commits a breach thereof, he cannot be allowed to take advantage of such situation. Further shelter had been sought behind the judgment in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Major General Madan Lal Yadav (Retd.) (1996) 3 SCR 785, wherein also the same legal maxim that no man can 49 O.A.No.946/2014 With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013 take advantage of his own wrong, had been reiterated. Further shelter had been sought behind the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in Baij Nath Sharma vs. Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur, 1988 SCC (L&S) 1754, which related to a case of delay in granting substantive promotions, and does not appear to be connected with the instant cases. It was further submitted that the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in C.K.P. Naidu vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (supra) was not relevant in the case of the applicants, because in that case the Tribunal had found that re-employment was denied for valid reasons, and the Hon'ble High Court never dealt with the issue about denial of salary. It was further submitted that while there is a right for consideration for re-employment, there are no notified guidelines for deciding the performance/fitness of the Principals/Vice Principals in the event of a downfall in the result of the School, when the applicants could not have been blamed for downfall of result, which was governed by various other factors. It was submitted that the case of the three applicants of these three OAs are cases of hostile discrimination, which is not permissible unless and until there are valid reasons, as held in the cases of (i) Ram Pratap vs. State of U.P., 1999 (2) ATJ 325, (ii) Dhirendra Chamoli vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1986 (1) SCC 637, (iii) Union of India & Ors. vs. M.P., 1990 (supp.) SCC 701, and (iv) Union of India & Ors. vs. Anil Kumar, 1999 SCC (L&S) 1020.
50O.A.No.946/2014
With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013
80. The information regarding results etc. obtained under RTI had been filed along with these written arguments, and along with other documents a copy of the order dated 21.07.2014 in Ramesh Chand and Har Prasad vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (supra) had also been filed.
81. In the second set of written submissions filed in the 4th case in OA No.793/2014, the applicant had been granted re-employment for one year but had been denied re-employment for the second year, and it was mentioned that irrelevant issues of shortfall of Insurance contribution etc. had been raised to deny the applicant's re-employment for second year, when there had actually been no appreciable fall in the result of the School, which had only improved. Reliance had been placed upon the same judgments, as already cited above, from the first written submissions.
82. In the third set of written submissions relating to OA No.3296/2013, which also was a case of re-employment having been granted for one year but not having been continued for the second year, the allegations of mala fide against R-5 had been reiterated. Further shelter had been sought in these written submissions also from the same cases, as cited above, in the case of the first written submissions.
83. Heard. Learned counsel of both the sides argued in very great detail, on two dates of hearing, mostly on the lines of the pleadings as 51 O.A.No.946/2014 With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013 already discussed in great detail above, as well as the written submissions filed by the learned counsel for the applicants, as already discussed in detail above.
84. We have given our anxious consideration to the facts of all these five cases, in which the facts vary, and differ only very slightly. The applicant of the first OA No.946/2014 had superannuated on 31.01.2014, and had sought re-employment w.e.f. 01.02.2014. The respondents rejected such re-employment on the ground of decline in result of the School through their order dated 20.02.2014. He gave his representation against that order on 07.03.2014, and even before that representation having been disposed off, he had filed his OA on 14.03.2014. Therefore, firstly we are not convinced that he had exhausted all remedies before approaching this Tribunal within one week of giving his representation against a speaking order passed just 25 days prior to his filing of the OA. Therefore, prima-facie, his submissions in Para-6 of the OA, regarding his having exhausted all remedies before approaching this Tribunal, do not appear to satisfy the requirement of Section-20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and his OA is, therefore, liable to be rejected on this ground alone. But even on merits also, the steady decline in the result of his School, as per the table reproduced by us in Paragraph-10 above, and as admitted by the applicant also, which he has only ascribed to various other factors other 52 O.A.No.946/2014 With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013 than his own ability to bring matters in the School, would also go to show that there is no merit in his contentions as raised in his O.A.
85. We have before us two orders of this Tribunal in Surender Kumar Mittal vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (supra), in which the reasoning and logic of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's judgment in the case of Shashi Kohli vs. Director of Education (supra) had been followed, and other on a slightly different Note, by another Coordinate Bench, in the case of Ramesh Chand and Har Prasad vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi pronounced on 21.07.2014 (supra). Since in such cases, the Hon'ble High Court's judgment would prevail, and in the case of Shashi Kohli vs. Director of Education (supra), the Hon'ble High Court had clearly laid down that the respondents are fully within their rights to assess professional fitness for the purpose of re-employment, which can only be done by the persons in the field of education and not by Courts and Tribunals, we cannot but follow the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Shashi Kohli vs. Director of Education (supra), which has been followed by another Coordinate Bench in Surender Kumar Mittal vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (supra). Therefore, we are unable to follow the order dated 21.07.2014 passed in the case of Ramesh Chand and Har Prasad vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (supra), by another Coordinate Bench, in which directions had been issued to the respondents to formulate a clear cut policy criteria or guideline for determining the fitness or otherwise of a superannuating candidate for re-employment. In the result, both on the aspect of non- 53 O.A.No.946/2014
With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013 exhaustion of all other available remedies, as are essential under Section-20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and on merits also, this OA is rejected.
86. In OA No.1247/2014 also, the applicant has tried to give many types of explanations like bifurcation of School, and division of existing staff etc., and not having been provided with any substitute Teachers in place of the transferred teachers, to explain away the fall in the result of his School. However, there is merit in the submissions of the respondents in that even after the School was bifurcated into two, the applicant of this OA did not make any attempts to even properly request for a separate HOS for the morning school, and deliberately kept on holding on to the charge of both the Morning and the Afternoon schools concurrently, and he was even directed to look after another single shift school, but since he was enjoying the status of Principal of two Schools, he never opted for the option made available to him. Also, there is merit in the contention of the respondents that when Guest Teachers had been fully provided to make up for the shortfall in the number of Teachers, and the subject of Economics was taught by the applicant himself, even the result in that subject had declined by 26%, and also there were many complaints of mass copying and unfair means, received in respect of examination conducted in his School, so much so that even an Answer Sheet was found in the custody of a complainant.
54O.A.No.946/2014
With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013
87. The applicant has also not explained the source and the authority under which he had obtained photocopies of the file notings from official files, which he had filed along with his rejoinder, but if they were not obtained under the RTI Act, it amounts to un-official possession of the same, if not the theft of copies of the documents. Therefore, if in the conspectus of such actions of and performance by the applicant, the respondents did not find him to be a person fit for being re-employed as a Principal, they cannot be faulted. As a result, we find no merit in the OA, and the same is dismissed.
88. The applicant of OA No.1341/2014 also retired as a Principal way back on 31.03.2012, and if he had been employed with effect from the very next day on 01.04.2012, his re-employment would have completed in the month of March 2014, on his birthday, two years after his such re- employment. However, the applicant filed this OA on 16.04.2014, which date was more than two years after his retirement on superannuation, and even after the expiry of the period for which he had sought such re- employment. He had been re-employed for one year, which was extendable for another year, but the same was discontinued in the middle of the second year by passing of the impugned order dated 06.08.2013. He has also alleged that the respondents have faulted in having passed the impugned order denying him extension of re- employment in the middle of the second year of his re-employment. 55 O.A.No.946/2014
With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013
89. However, we are surprised that if the first year of his re- employment had ended sometime in the month of March, 2013, when he had completed 61 years of age, how could he claim to have continued to function as a re-employed person till the impugned order dated 06.08.2013 denying him extension for the second year was passed. Actually his re-employment had ceased after the first year, when he had attained 61 years of age. Although the applicant has taken various arguments to explain away the deviation and fall in the result of the School, by producing a result analysis in respect of Hindi Subject which he was teaching for the years 2011-12 and 2012-13, and has made allegations that he has been discriminated against because he is being a Member of SC Community, but we find no merit in his submissions in this regard. The applicant has claimed that he was allowed to continue to function as Principal till 28.06.2013, but has failed to produce even a slip of paper by which such an order allowing him to continue to function for even a portion of the second year of such re-employment was made possible, without any specific order of the respondent-authorities in this regard. He has even tried to play his caste card, and after his representation had been rejected, he had first approached the SC/ST Commission, which had issued a Summon dated 05.05.2014, and his Petition before the SC/ST Commission was still pending when, for the same cause of action, he had filed the present OA. We find merit in the submissions of the respondents that when during several inspections, deficiencies in the School had been pointed out to the applicant, and he 56 O.A.No.946/2014 With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013 had not bothered to correct those deficiencies, even though he had been provided full assistance of as many as 81 Teachers to assist him in the teaching aspect in the School, and yet he was found wanting in the inspections carried out.
90. Therefore, following the law, as laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Shashi Kohli vs. Director of Education (supra), we find no merit in the OA, and this OA is also rejected. The applicant also requires to be chided for having approached the SC/ST Commission by playing his caste card, when the denial for continuation of re-employment earlier granted to him was purely administrative, for which he could have approached this Tribunal directly, instead of resorting to two parallel proceedings simultaneously before two fora.
91. The applicant of OA No.793/2014 had been provided re- employment for one year after superannuation, but had been denied extension of such re-employment for the second year. While the respondents have alleged that he had failed to deposit certain amounts due to the Government, he has alleged mala fide in the actions of the respondents. In his case, while filing the reply, the respondents not only relied upon the cases of Shashi Kohli vs. Director of Education (supra) and Surender Kumar Mittal vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (supra), but they had also pointed out the orders passed by the Tribunal in Mool Chand Dabas vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (supra), and had also objected 57 O.A.No.946/2014 With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013 to the applicant having prayed for plural remedies in a single OA, because of which the OA is not maintainable under Rule-10 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987. The applicant had on his part tried to explain away as to how he had failed to deposit in time the balance contribution for the Group Insurance Scheme. The applicant of this OA also had approached the National Commission for SCs/STs on 26.03.2014, making allegations against Senior Officers, and charging them with biased approach and castism, even after filing his OA on 28.02.2014. Such recourse to two fora simultaneously, in respect of redressal of the same grievance, cannot but be held to be an abuse of the process of law. While arguing his case, learned counsel for the respondents had pointed out the judgment in C.K.P. Naidu vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (supra) in which in Paragraphs 8, 9 & 14, the Hon'ble High Court has held and observed as follows:-
"8. We have considered the rival submissions. This Court has taken the view that even on re-employment, a retired Principal has no right to be reemployed as a Principal and under the scheme, he can only be re-employed as a PGT. In this regard, reference may be made to Shashi Kohli vs. Directorate of Education in WP(C) No. 4330/2010 decided on 29.04.2011. The Court held that the grant of extension is not a matter of right. The retired Principal/ Vice-Principal only has a right to be considered, that too only for posts till PGT, and the school has a right to deny re-employment. The petitioner has no vested right to re-employment. As per the scheme, the re-employment can be to the post of PGT, and not to the post of Principal. On this short ground, the impugned order of the Tribunal, granting reemployment to Naidu cannot be sustained.
9. We may also observe that there could be situations where despite a retired Principal/ Vice-Principal being otherwise eligible for being considered to be appointed as a PGT, he may 58 O.A.No.946/2014 With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013 not be so appointed looking to the number of teachers already in employment in the concerned school. It is possible that there may be no vacancy and the school may not have any work for the re-employed PGT. In our view, the purport of the scheme is not to thrust a retired Principal/ Vice- Principal upon a school when it has no work for him/her.
10 to 13.xxxxxxxxxxxxxx(Not reproduced here)
14. Even if it were to be accepted that Naidu was entitled to re- employment as a PGT under the Scheme, in our view the Tribunal was also right in observing that the decision in K.V. Jankiraman (supra) was not applicable in the facts of the present case, since the said decision deals with the case of an employee and not one who is seeking re- employment".
(Emphasis supplied)
92. We are not only bound by, but also most respectfully agree with the observations of the Hon'ble High Court that the purport of the re- employment Scheme is to provide adequacy of Teachers in teaching at the Schools, and it is not to thrust a retired Principal/ Vice-Principal upon a school when it has no work for him/her. The respondents provided re- employment to the applicant for one year, and thereafter assessed his performance, and did not continue it for the second year. Since consideration for such continuation of re-employment alone was his right, going by the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Shashi Kohli vs. Director of Education (supra), and C.K.P. Naidu vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (supra), and Coordinate Bench order in the case of Surender Kumar Mittal vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (supra), we find no merit in the OA, and the same is, therefore, rejected. 59 O.A.No.946/2014
With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013
93. The applicant of OA No.3296/2013 had superannuated as Vice- Principal on 31.08.2012, and was re-employed as Vice-Principal for one year, within a week thereafter, through order dated 03.09.2012, in pursuance of which she joined on 07.09.2012. However, when she failed to perform her assigned duties, and did not even bother about likelihood of the funds available to the School lapsing due to her delay in signing the required bills in the months of February/March, the respondents made a fresh assessment of her performance in the first year of her re- employment, and decided not to continue her re-employment for the second year, which is fully permissible under the law as laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Shashi Kohli vs. Director of Education (supra), and C.K.P. Naidu vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (supra).
94. The applicant of this OA has submitted that the first year of her re- employment came to an end on 31.08.2013, and not on her date of birth in the Month of August 2013, and has faulted the Principal for not having allowed her to sign the Attendance Register etc. However, even though the order for her re-employment for the first year may have been issued stating for it to come to an end on 31.08.2013, in anticipation of continuation of her re-employment, the actual Scheme provides re- employment only upto 61 years of age in the first instance, renewable upto 62 years of age in the second year, and the benefit which has been provided in the cases of superannuation of the public servants, whose 60 O.A.No.946/2014 With O.A.No.793/2014 O.A.No.1247/2014 O.A.No.1341/2014 O.A.No.3296/2013 date of birth falls on any date from the second of the month to the last date of the month concerned, such benefit is available only in the case of normal superannuation, and cannot be deemed to be automatically extended to the cases of re-employment, when the eligibility for possible re-employment is related to the age, with upto 61 years of age for the first year of re-employment, and upto 62 years of age for the second year of re-employment.
95. Therefore, there is no merit in the argument of the applicant that when the respondents had decided not to continue her re-employment till the completion of her 62 years of age, they ought to have necessary stuck to the date of 31.08.2013. She has also not been able to show any reasoning, logic or ground as to why, when her performance was not found to be upto the mark, the respondents ought to have necessarily renewed her re-employment for a second year also, upto her obtaining the 62 years of age. Therefore, we find no merit in the OA, and the OA is, therefore, rejected.
96. In the result, for the reasons as recorded above, all the five OAs are rejected, but there shall be no order as to costs in any of these OAs.
97. Let a copy of this order be placed in each case file.
(Raj Vir Sharma) (Sudhir Kumar) Member (J) Member (A) cc.