Judgment:
Vijender Jain, J.
1. Rule.
2. This petition, inter alia, seeks issuance of appropriate writ or direction for appointment of the petitioners to the post of Assistant Teachers and quashing the communication dated 19th June, 2001 of respondent No. 2 as well as 8th October, 2001 of respondent No. 3. Petitioner No. 1 was working in the respondent No. 3/school as Additional Primary Teacher since 1992. The petitioner obtained the qualification of Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) and was appointed as Assistant Teacher on ad hoc basis from 1st August, 2000 to 31st October, 2000 by the respondent in the same school. Petitioner No. 2 applied for appointment as Assistant Teacher pursuant to the advertisement issued by respondent No. 3 calling for application for appointment to two regular posts of Assistant Teachers (one OBC and one General). Petitioners and others were called for interview. Thereafter a panel was prepared and respondent No. 3 issued appointment letters dated 11th December, 2000 appointing petitioner No. 1 against General Vacancy and petitioner No. 2 against OBC vacancy on probation of two years to the post of Assistant Teacher. It seems that in the meanwhile, a Division Bench of this Court passed a judgment in case of Ataul Haque v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (CWP No. 6798 and 6796/2000) reported in 2001 (5) DRJ 49 holding that persons possessing qualification of Nursery Teachers Training and B.Ed. were not competent to teach Class 3, 4 and 5 of the Primary classes.
3. Mr. Ashok Chhabra, learned counsel for the respondent/MCD has contended that respondent No. 2/MCD granted approval to the said appointment of the petitioners on account of the judgment rendered by this Court in Ataul Haque's case (supra).
4. To my mind the reason given by the respondent is not legally tenable. The judgment of Ataul Haque's case (supra) was rendered on 9th February, 2001 whereas the petitioners were given appointment letters on 11th December, 2000. thereforee, the ratio of Ataul Haque's case (supra) would be applicable prospectively and not retrospectively. Even otherwise, my attention has been invited to Rule 98 (2), (3) and (4) of Delhi School Education Rules. The same is as under :-
'(2) Every appointment made by the managing committee of an aided school shall, initially, be provisional and shall require the approval of the Director;
Provided that the approval of the Director will be required only where Director's nominee was not present in the Selection Committee/DPC or in case there is difference of opinion among the members of the Selection committee.
Provided further that the provision of this sub-rule shall not apply to a minority aided school.
(3) The particulars of very appointment made by managing committee of an aided school shall be communicated by such committee to the Director (either by registered post acknowledgement due or by messenger who will obtain an acknowledgement of the receipt thereof), with seven days from the date on which appointment is made.
(4) The Director shall be deemed to have approved an appointment made by the managing committee of an aided school if within fifteen days from the date on which the particulars of the appointment are communicated to him under sub-rule (3), he does not intimate to the managing committee has disapproval of the appointment , and person so appointed shall be entitled for his salary and allowance from the date of his appointment.'
5. Proviso to Rule 2 postulates that the approval of the Director will be required only where Director's nominee was not present in the Selection Committee/DPC or in case there is difference of opinion among the members of the Selection committee.
6. It is not the case of respondent No. 2 that the nominee of respondent No. 2 was not present in the Selection Committee. As a matter of fact in the affidavit filed by respondent No. 3, it is borne out that Shri B. Dass, Additional Director, SP Zone (East) and Dr. Tara Gupta, Assistant Education Officer, SP Zone were present in the Selection Committee. thereforee, there was no need for the approval of Director by respondent No. 3 as per the Rules. My attention has also been drawn to a judgment of single Judge of this Court in Mrs. Sushma Banga v. Delhi Administration & Ors. (CW No. 1099/88) rendered on 13th March, 2003 which has taken the similar view. Judging from any angle respondent No. 2 cannot give the impugned direction not to appoint the petitioners on the basis of Ataul Haque's case which will have its application prospectively. thereforee, I quash the impugned letters dated 19th June, 2001 of respondent No. 2 as well as 8th October, 2001 of respondent No. 3 with the direction to respondent No. 3 to appoint petitioners in terms of their appointment letters with continuity in service as the petitioners are working in the school pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court.
7. Petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute.