Research › Browse › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 84 (DEL)

BRAHAM DUTT SHARMA v. H. K. ARORA

1996-01-18

M.K.SHARMA

body1996
M. K. SHARMA ( 1 ) THE writ petition was initially filed by three petitioners, but by an order dated 16. 12 1996 passed by a Division Bench of this court the names of petitioners No. 2 and 3 were ordered to be deleted from the array of parties. ( 2 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the orders passed by the Director of Education. Delhi not granting approval to the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Upper Division Clerk in Alok Bharati Higher Secondary School, Khureji Khas. ( 3 ) THE said Alok Bharati Higher Secondary School, Khureji Khas was recognised and aided w. e. f. 1. 4. 1975. The petitioner was appointed in the said school by the then Managing Committee of the school prior to the date of recognition granted to the said school. In pursuance of the provisions of Delhi School Education Act and Rules of 1973 which were in force w. e. f. 31. 12. 1993 all appointments and service conditions of every employee of an aided and recognised school are to be regulated in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. As per provisions of Rule 98 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 every appointment made by the Managing Committee of an aided school would initially be provisional and would require the approval of the Director. Since the petitioner was appointed by the then Managing Committee of the School prior to the date from which Alok Bharati Higher Secondary School, Khureji Khas, was aided it became necessary to approve the appointment of the petitioner to the post of UDC. When the matter was placed before the appropriate authority for the grant of approval to his appointment the competent authority found that the petitioner had crossed the maximum age limit as prescribed under the Rules and was not eligible to be appointed as Upper Division Clerk in an aided school as per requirement of Rule 104 of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 framed under Delhi School Education Act. 1973. 1973. In view of the fact that the petitioner w as over-aged and was unqualified, the competent authority did not grant any approval to his appointment to the post of UDC to which he was appointed by the then Managing Committee of the school prior to the date from which recognition was granted to the school by the respondent. ( 4 ) HAVING considered the pleadings of the parties and having considered the provisions of Rule 98 of the Rules I find that it is specifically laid-down in the Rules that every appointment made by the Managing Committee of an aided school would require the approval of the Director and where such appointment made by the Managing Committee of the School was not approved by the Director such appointments mights continued on ad hoc basis for a period not exceeding six months and the salary and allownances of a person so continued on ad hoc basis shall qualify for the computation of aid to be given to such school. In view of the aforesaid provisions of the Rules no person, whose appointment is not approved by the Director. can continue beyond six months and that too when such person is allowed to function only in the capacity of an ad hoc employee. On a careful reading of the provisions of Rule 98 of the Rules it it is apparent that the approval of the Director to the appointment of an employee in an aided and recognised school is mandatory in order to continue in the school and in order to be regularised and confirmed. Since the competent authority on going through the records found that the petitioner was over-aged and was unqualified to be appointed the post of UDC to which he was appointed by the then Managing Committee prior to giving of the recognition by the respondents his services were rightly not approved by the Director and accordingly, it cannot be said that the decision of the Director in not approving the appointment of the petitioner is in any way arbitrary and illegal. ( 5 ) THE petitioner has also- in this case. challenged the order of taking over the management of the school by the respondents No. l and 2. The said order was passed by the Administrator and addressed to the management. ( 5 ) THE petitioner has also- in this case. challenged the order of taking over the management of the school by the respondents No. l and 2. The said order was passed by the Administrator and addressed to the management. In my opinion, the petitioner was not a party to the proceedings under Section 20 of the Act and if any one is aggrieved in pursuance of the aforesaid action, it is the Managing Committee and not the petitioner. It was open to the Managing Committee or the Manager of the School to file an appeal to the Administrator against the order passed under the provisions of Section 20. In my opinion the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the legality and validity of the aforesaid order. ( 6 ) IN the result, this writ petition has no merit and the same stands dismissed, but without any costs.