Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 188 (DEL)

REKHA SHARMA v. P. S. M. PUBLIC SR. SEC. SCHOOL

2006-01-25

S.RAVINDRA BHAT

body2006
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner in these writ proceedings has challenged an order of the Delhi school Tribunal dated 4. 12. 2001 dismissing her appeal. ( 2 ) THE petitioner claims that she was appointed by the first respondent (hereafter called ?the school? ). In the course of her employment she had performed the duties assigned to her diligently, prepared the result of the students, and signed their report cards. The petitioner alleges that the school was paying her only Rs. 1200/- per month as salary which was far below the standard prescribed. It is claimed that she accordingly represented to the directorate. The petitioner alleges that as a result of this, the school became vindictive and removed her from the services w. e. f. 15. 7. 1998. She wrote various letters, and caused a legal notice to be issued. ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by any lack of response, the petitioner approached the Delhi School tribunal under Section 8 (3) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 complaining of illegal termination. ( 4 ) THE school, which contested the appeal disputed having employed the petitioner. It took the position that the entire claim was baseless and that the petitioner could not maintain the appeal since she had not been terminated, having never been employed by it in the first place. ( 5 ) DURING the course of proceedings before the Tribunal, the petitioner produced certain photographs and also placed reliance on copies of various progress reports issued to pupils studying in the school. She alleged that such reports had been issued by her. She also placed reliance upon some material in the form of affidavits by the parents of children whom she is supposed to have taught, in the school. ( 6 ) THE Tribunal reasoned that the recruitment of the teacher has to be in accordance with Rule 96 of the Delhi School Education Rules, which mandates that a Selection Committee had to be constituted including experts nominated by the director. Such candidates are to be appointed by the Managing Committee under rule 98 and the Directorate has to approve the appointment in a time bound manner. The Tribunal reasoned that there was no material to conclude that the petitioner had been appointed in accordance with the rules nor was her alleged appointment confirmed or ratified by the Director. Such candidates are to be appointed by the Managing Committee under rule 98 and the Directorate has to approve the appointment in a time bound manner. The Tribunal reasoned that there was no material to conclude that the petitioner had been appointed in accordance with the rules nor was her alleged appointment confirmed or ratified by the Director. The Tribunal also took in to consideration the circumstance that respondents had been sending annual reports to the Director of Education containing all names of employees of the school. Those returns did not contain the petitioner s name. In view of these factors, the Tribunal concluded that the petitioner had not been able to establish that she was employed by the school and, therefore, there was no question of her having been terminated legally or otherwise. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the approach of the Tribunal was contrary to law. He submitted that the Tribunal had not appreciated the true impact of the copies of progress reports, photographs and the affidavits of parents of pupils which conclusively established that she was employed by the school. Learned counsel submitted that the signatures on the photo copies of the progress reports and the material existing on the file established that the petitioner had indeed worked for the school. Learned counsel seriously questioned the procedure adopted by the Tribunal and stated that it did not consider all the evidence and materials but merely upheld the objections of the school. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the school justified the order of the Tribunal. He also placed reliance upon an enquiry report dated 31. 12. 2002 (pursuant to an inspection of the school and enquiry) by the Directorate of Education to say that the petitioner was never employed by the respondent and she, for reasons best known to her, initiated proceedings claiming to have been un-lawfully dismissed. ( 9 ) IN the present case, undisputedly the petitioner has not relied upon any appointment letter or order or even collateral evidence such as salary slip or assignment of duties. The main stay of her claim are few copies of progress report said to contain her signatures, a few photographs and three affidavits; affirmed by persons whose children are studying in the school. ( 10 ) THE scope of jurisdiction under Article 226 is narrow. The main stay of her claim are few copies of progress report said to contain her signatures, a few photographs and three affidavits; affirmed by persons whose children are studying in the school. ( 10 ) THE scope of jurisdiction under Article 226 is narrow. The enquiry by the court in such proceedings is limited to the legality, regularity and propriety of an inferior Tribunals decision and decision making process. The Court does not enter into the arena of facts and re-appreciate evidence or materials as an appellate Court. The only exception is where the conclusions of the Tribunal are unsupported by materials or are so perverse as to be termed un-reasonable. ( 11 ) THE enquiry report by the Directorate; comprised of three members nominated in that regard. The report reads as follows:"smt. Rekha Sharma vs. PSM Sr. Sec. School and Ors. On 10. 12. 02 at 10. 30 A. M. an inquiry was conducted along with Mrs. Sudha Gupta eo Zone XII, Mr. I. R. Vaid AAO Distt. NW (B) and Smt. Bimla Yadav, Principal SKV nithari in PSM Sr. Sec. School, Kirari regarding the court case of Mrs. Rekha sharma V/s PSM Sr. Sec. School and Others. Records of the School i. e. Attendance Register, A. Roll, Pay Bill Register and the other related papers were thoroughly checked and it could not be established whether Mrs. Rekha sharma had been working in the P. S. M. Sr. Sec. School during 3. 9. 1995 to 15. 7. 1998. Manager of the PSM Sr. Sec. School also informed that she worked as a teacher during the above-mentioned period. 31. 12. 02 31. 12. 02 31. 12. 02 e. O. Zone XII Mr. I. R. Vaid B. S. Meet gg Sr. Sec. S. Q. Block Asst. A/c Officer D. E. O. Z. XII mangolpur Distt. NW (B)" ( 12 ) I have considered the submission of parties on the basis of materials placed on record in the form of copies of the progress reports, affidavits relied upon and the photographs as well as the enquiry report of the Directorate. In the absence of any compelling circumstance to conclude that the enquiry report was perverse, I do not find any infirmity with the approach and the findings of the tribunal. In the absence of any compelling circumstance to conclude that the enquiry report was perverse, I do not find any infirmity with the approach and the findings of the tribunal. Even, if the petitioner s submissions about having been employed were to be accepted for the sake of argument, the complete lack of any material directly relatable to her employment either in the form of copies of pay slips or duty chart, copies of circulars etc. indicating her to be an employee, it is difficult to conclude that the petitioner was in reality employed by the respondent school. Every litigant--the petitioner being no exception--has to present his or her best evidence in support of the claim before a Judicial tribunal or court of law. The materials existing can hardly inspire confidence to conclude that the petitioner was employed and later un-lawfully terminated from the services. ( 13 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, I find no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to the costs. .