Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Mr. Rajinder Dhawan appearing on behalf of respondent no.4-school submits that a recognised school is on a different footing than an unrecognised school. A recognised school has to follow the Rules and Regulations as per Delhi School Education Act. Rule 104 provides for the same. The minimum age at the time of recognition should be 25 years. Petitioner was overage and hence is not eligible for being regularised in a recognised school.

7. Mr. Dhawan has placed reliance on a decision of the learned Single Judge in Prem Lata Datta Vs. Union of India & Ors . This was a case where the teacher was not found to be possessing the requisite qualifications being only a Matric at the time school was recognized. Opportunity had been granted to the teacher to obtain the necessary qualifications. As the teacher has failed to obtain the minimum qualifications, her services were terminated and non possession of the requisite qualification was regarded as non compliance with the rules which a recognised school is required to follow and hence her services were terminated. I am of the view that the above case is distinguishable and it does not advance the respondent's case. It refers to not attaining minimum prescribed qualification despite opportunity.

9. Ms. Avnish Ahlawat appearing for respondents 1 to 3-Directorate of Education, submits that the petitioner could not be said to have been employed on regular basis and scale. His appointment has to be reckoned as a contractual one, being on a consolidated salary. In this context, she further submits that Rule 104 would be attracted as and when the school is recognised and his services are sought to be regularized. It would tantamount to recruitment within the meaning of Rule 104 of the Delhi School Education Rules. It is further urged that post was created only on 10.7.2001. She submits that when post was created even then petitioner was overage. He was overage at the time of grant of recognition. He was overage at the time of sanction of posts. Hence she urges that impugned order has been rightly passed.

12. It would be seen that the Rule specifying the age bar is for recruitment or engagement and not for regularization. When the petitioner was engaged or recruited, he was within the age limit. For purpose of regularization, no upper age limit has been prescribed. Hence Rule 104 would not be attracted in the instant case. Moreover, in this case the selection process was duly followed. It is not a case where the petitioner is found not to be possessing the requisite qualification and experience. D.P.C comprising representative from the Directorate of Education had duly approved the selection of the petitioner as a U.D.C. It was pursuant to this selection and approval by the Directorate of Education that appointment letter was issued to the petitioner for his regularization. It is only subsequently that the Directorate of Education has refused to grant-in-aid on the ground that petitioner was overage at the time of grant of recognition to the school or even when the posts were sanctioned.

13. Reference may also be useful to the decision of a learned Single Judge in CW No.1592/2003 in Smt. Amita Majumdar & ors Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & ors decided on 13.1.2004. In the cited case, school had been established by the Officers of Indian Air Force in the year 1976 and was run as an unrecognised school. Recognition was granted in the year 1993. Petitioners were employees of the school prior to the date of recognition i.e. their appointment was between the year 1975 and 1988. When recognition was granted, objections as to the appointment of these employees were not taken. The Directorate of Education also admitted the school for receiving grant-in-aid. However, while sanctioning grant-in-aid, it excluded 12 teachers/non-teaching staff for the purpose of disbursement of grant-in-aid because the said persons were overage. The Directorate of Education took the stand that it had released grant-in-aid only in respect of the member of staff, who were qualified for the appointment as on the date of recognition. The petitioners being overage, were not eligible to be appointed when the school sought recognition and therefore, Director of Education would not release any grant-in-aid for the said petitioners. The learned Judge held as under:-