Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.41 seconds)
Documents citing Manohar Lal vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 9 September, 2013

Resident Of J-7/23 vs Sister Nivedita School on 27 August, 2016

Further, Ld. counsel for the Defendant also had raised an argument that Rule 110(2) cannot apply to the Plaintiff, since she was not a teacher but the Head Mistress of the School. In this context, perusal of section 2(w) of the DSE Act becomes relevant, which defines the word 'teacher' to include the head of the school. Thus, Rule 110 will apply not only to every teacher but also the Head of the School and hence, it is applicable even to the Plaintiff in the present case. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in this regard in the case of Manohar Lal v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 2013 SCC OnLine Del 3529 also clarified the true position of law, wherein confusion was caused, since sub-rule (1) of Rule 110 states that age of retirement as 58 years for all employees but for employees who are teachers the proviso provides for extension by 2 years from the age of 58 years to 60 years, however sub-Rule 1 of Rule 110 which has been subsequently amended enhances the age of retirement of a teacher to 60 years itself. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced below:
Delhi District Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kiranjot Singh vs Directorate Of Education & Anr. on 29 May, 2018

In Manohar Lal (supra), a Division Bench of this Court has clarified that right of a teacher is not to re-employment but to be considered for re-employment, which has been done in the instant case. In the considered opinion of this Court, re-employment is subject to teacher's work and conduct, which in case of petitioner is adverse. Thus, no case for quashing the impugned order is made out. Denial of re- employment to petitioner is found to be amply justified.
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - S Gaur - Full Document
1