Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

20. Aforesaid principles of law were not brought to the notice of the Division Bench when Ajit Kumar's case (supra) was decided.

21. Facts noted above would reveal that by April 2011 the issue in dispute had been resolved in favour of the respondent by two Division Benches of this Court, and yet in spite thereof the petitioner obstinately took the stand that a teacher would be only she who teaches the 3 R's in a classroom, a view which was negated time and again because under the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 a teacher was defined widely and as per Rule 110 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 even personnel engaged with laboratory activities in schools were required to be treated as teachers. The reason being obvious. Practical teaching and theoretical teaching are two sides of the same coin of education. A Chemistry Teacher in class teaches theories about chemicals and how different chemicals react and why do they react. When do two chemicals react to form a salt or an Esther or release a gas and why? This is taught in the classroom. In the laboratory practical teaching of the theory in its application is done. We highlight that it is not the case of the petitioner that the post held by the respondent, with reference to its nomenclature, would not entitle the respondent to be treated as a Teacher. We highlight. The petitioner was litigating before the Tribunal by pleading that notwithstanding the decisions of two Division Benches of this Court in Sushma Nayar's case and Giriraj Sharma's case, the matter was under re-consideration, a stand which is factually incorrect.