Delhi High Court - Orders
Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr vs Rajni Lamba @ Rajni Behl & Anr on 25 March, 2021
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Amit Bansal
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3156/2021
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Ms. Latika Choudhary, Advocate.
versus
RAJNI LAMBA @ RAJNI BEHL & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pritish Sabharwal & Mr. Kunal
Mittal, Advocates for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
ORDER
% 25.03.2021 C.M. No.9581/2021(for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant Rules.
2. The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 3156/2021
3. This petition impugns the interim order dated 6th December, 2018 granted by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in OA No.4484/2018 preferred by the respondent No.1.
4. The respondent No. 1 preferred the said OA impugning the order dated 29th November, 2017 rescinding her appointment to post of TGT (English) on 10th July, 2012.
5. CAT, vide the impugned order, has directed the petitioners and the respondent no.2 Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) to maintain status quo and as a consequence whereof the respondent No.1 continues in service.
W.P.(C) 3156/2021 Page 1 of 3 Signature Not Verified Signed By:ASHWANI Signing Date:05.04.2021 11:03:306. The respondent no.1, as aforesaid, was appointed as TGT (English) on 10th July, 2012 pursuant to participating in a competitive exam and pursuant to order dated 13th January, 2012 of CAT in O.A. No.3823/2011 preferred by respondent No.1. However, one Archana Agarwal, (not a party to this petition) who was also a participant in the same selection process pursuant to which the respondent No. 1 had been appointed, also challenged the selection process and vide order dated 11th May, 2016 in W.P. (C) No. 10300/2015 preferred by her, was directed to be appointed. The counsel for petitioners contends that since the said Archana Agarwal had secured more marks than the respondent no.1 in the selection process and since there was only one vacancy remaining at the relevant year, to which either the said Archana Agarwal or the respondent No. 1 could be appointed, the appointment of respondent No.1 was rescinded and Archana Agarwal appointed.
7. This writ petition, impugning the interim order of CAT, has been preferred after more than two years.
8. The counsel for the petitioners states that this petition has been preferred, since in proceedings initiated by Archana Agarwal, the petitioners have been directed to appoint her and only one can be appointed, against the subject vacancy.
9. The counsel for the respondent no.1 appearing on advance notice states that the petitioner, in violation of the impugned order of status quo has on 3rd February, 2021 terminated the services of the respondent no.1 and the respondent no.1 has already instituted Contempt Proceedings before CAT. The counsel for the respondent no.1 further states that the aforesaid Archana W.P.(C) 3156/2021 Page 2 of 3 Signature Not Verified Signed By:ASHWANI Signing Date:05.04.2021 11:03:30 Agarwal has already been granted an appointment on 3rd March, 2021.
10. We have during the hearing suggested counsel for the petitioner that even if for the subject year, the vacancy did not permit appointment of both Archana Agarwal and the respondent no.1, considering the fact that the respondent no.1 has served as TGT (English) now for nearly nine years and would be over-age for any other selection, why don't the petitioners retain both of them as TGTs (English). There is always a dearth of teachers in Government schools
11. The counsel for the petitioners states that it may be so clarified.
12. Leaving the respondent no.1 to pursue her remedy in the Contempt Proceedings, this petition is dismissed on account of laches and acquiescence.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J AMIT BANSAL, J MARCH 25, 2021 ak W.P.(C) 3156/2021 Page 1 of 3 Signature Not Verified Signed By:ASHWANI Signing Date:05.04.2021 11:03:30