Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.20 seconds)
R P Yadav vs Govt. Of Nctd on 5 December, 2017 cites

Shashi Kohli vs Director Of Education And Anr on 29 April, 2011

In Shashi Kohli v. Director of Education and Anr. [W.P.(C) No.4330/2010, decided on 29.04.2011], the Honble High Court of Delhi held that "At the cost of repetition, it may be stated that the petitioner has no right to re-employment. She only has a right to be considered and the School has a right to deny her re- employment, if after considering her overall performance as a Teacher, it finds that she is not fit for re-employment."
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 27 - R Sharma - Full Document

Surender Kumar Mittal vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 31 October, 2012

In Surender Kumar Mittal v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others, [OA No.661/2012, decided on 31.10.2012 of the Principal Bench], this Tribunal held that it is seen that the so called automatic reemployment of the retired Teacher is not fully automatic. It is subject to fitness and vigilance clearance. The overall performance of the Teacher before his retirement is assessed on 10 TA-10/2015 the basis of various factors and if he is found fit, then only his name would be recommended by the concerned Deputy Director of Education (DDE). Since the Head of the School is in direct charge of the Teacher concerned, his report is very important. In the present case, the applicant was not found fit to be given the automatic extension by the Head of the School. The Deputy Director of Education, In-charge of the District in which the applicants School is situated has also not found the applicant fit and, therefore, not recommended for automatic reemployment." Similar view has been reaffirmed by many other judicial fora. The plea of the applicant that he has a right to automatic re- employment (subject to the stipulated conditions like vigilance clearance, medical fitness etc.) is not tenable. Rather, such a step would be totally contrary to the directions of Government of India, as already pointed out by the respondents in their counter reply. Without commenting on legality (or otherwise) of the two orders/notifications of the State Government, we proceed to decide the issue on the basis of policy decision taken by Department of Social Welfare. The DoP&T vide their O.M. dated 09.12.2002 has laid down that:-
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 1 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1