Smt. Sunita Bugga v. Director of Education & Ors

MANMOHAN, J. JULY 30, 2010 vk/dk

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on : 6th July, 2010 % Judgment Pronounced on: 30th July, 2010 + WP(C) No.8663/2008 SMT. SUNITA BUGGA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sandeep Mittal, Adv. Versus DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AND OTHERS ….. Respondents Through: Ms. Purnima Maheshwari, Adv. for Respondents 1 to 3. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN 1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment?Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes DIPAK MISRA, CJ Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a trained graduate teacher (social sciences) has prayed for declaring the Notification No.F.27(3)/94-Edn/1068- 1076 dated 4th November, 1999 issued by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Education Department) as ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 2. The facts which are imperative to be stated are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the R.M. Arya Girls Senior Secondary School in 1977 and was promoted as TGT (Social Sciences) in August, 1983. The post of PGT (Sanskrit) fell vacant in the school in November, 1992. The petitioner, who was teaching Sanskrit in Classes X to XII for certain academic sessions, was not promoted as she was not found eligible for the post of PGT (Sanskrit) by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) which met on 5th May, 2007. Though various averments have been made with regard to the findings arrived at by the DPC and the deliberations made by it, yet the same do not really deserve to be dwelled upon in the present case since the acid test is whether the relevant rules 96, 98 and 108 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (for short "the rules") on a proper interpretation help and assist the petitioner to meet the eligibility criteria and further whether the notification plays foul with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 3. It is asserted in the petition that the introduction of the amendment in the eligibility criteria which deals with promotion is not in consonance with the Rules 96 and 98 of the rules and certain pronouncements in the field. Be it noted, apart from making some bald allegations, nothing else has been averred as to how the notification really invites the frown of Article 14 of the Constitution. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 contending, inter-alia, that the petitioner is a TGT (Social Study) having done her post graduation in public administration/ Political Science/Sanskrit whereas the selected candidate was TGT (MIL) Sanskrit and she had done M.A. in Sanskrit. It is urged that the Director of Education vide letter dated 29th August, 2007 clarified that the selected candidate deserved to be appointed as she was TGT (MIL) Sanskrit and was qualified as per the recruitment rules. It is also put forth that the notification brought on 4th November, 1999 is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 5. The constitutional validity of the notification that has been called in question reads as follows:- "No.F.27(3)/94-Edn:- In exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to article 309 of the Constitution, read with the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs" Notification No.F.27/5- Him (I), dated the 13 July 1959, the Lt. Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi is pleased to make the following amendments in the schedule annexed to the notification No.F.2(41/72-S.II) dated 10.07.1975 and F.27(3)/94-Edn dated 26.02.1996, as amended from time to time, containing the Rules regarding the method of recruitment and qualifications necessary for appointment to the "Post" of Lecturer excluding (1) Lecturer – (Paining, Commercial Art/Graphic Sculpture/ Engineering Drawing), (2) Lecturer)- Home Science/Domestic Science, (3) Lecturer – Music and (4) Lecturer – p