Ms.Parveen Vs. Management, Little Flowers Public Sr. Sec. School

Ms.Parveen vs Management, Little Flowers Public Sr. Sec. School

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Feb 25, 2013

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/956136

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/956136
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Valmiki J. Mehta
Decided On: Feb 25, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ms.Parveen

Advocate Mr. M.P.Singh Rathee

Respondent

Management, Little Flowers Public Sr. Sec. School

Advocate Mr. S.B.Tripathi, Mr. Alok Gupta, Ms. Purnima Maheshwari

Excerpt

.....court.3. i may state that it was contended on behalf of the respondent no.2/director of education that the aforesaid issue of re-employment upto the age of 62 years cannot apply to the respondent school which is an unaided private school, but, i am not able to accept this argument inasmuch as all schools, whether aided or unaided, are bound to act in terms of the applicable provisions of the delhi school education act and rules, 1973. in fact even the unaided minority schools are also governed by the different sub-sections of section 8 of the delhi school education act (except section 8(2) which deals with the issue of requiring prior permission of the director of education before terminating the service of an employee/teacher) as so held in the judgments of the supreme court in the cases of g.vallikumari vs. andhra education society and others, (2010) 2 scc 49.and sindhi education society vs chief secretary, govt.of nct of delhi (2010) 8 scc 49.4. in view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and disposed of by directing the respondent no.1 school to consider the issue of re-employment of the petitioner upto the age of 62 years in accordance with law. the order which is passed by the respondent no.1 school be communicated to the petitioner within a period of two months from today.5. in case the petitioner has any grievance, the petitioner will be at liberty to approach a court of law on the order being passed by respondent no.1.6. if the petitioner has not made any representation to the school, then, the petitioner will make the necessary representation to the school seeking reemployment, giving the detailed facts, within a period of one week from today.7. writ petition is allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid observations. february 25 2013 nt w.p.(c) no.180/2012

Full Judgment

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % W.P.(C) No. 180/2012 25th February, 2013 MS.PARVEEN Through: ...... Petitioner Mr. M.P.Singh Rathee, Advocate. VERSUS MANAGEMENT, LITTLE FLOWERS PUBLIC SR. SEC. SCHOOL & ANR. ...... Respondent Through: Mr. S.B.Tripathi, Adv. for R-1. Mr. Alok Gupta, Adv. for Ms. Purnima Maheshwari, Adv. for R-1. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.

MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. By the present writ petition the petitioner seeks re-employment upto the age of 62 years after superannuating at the age of 60 years.

2. This issue is no longer res integra that the entitlement of a person is only to be considered for employment and there is no automatic right to reemployment vide Chander Prabha Sood vs Director of Education and Anr., 179 (2011) DLT 486.There are also similar other judgments of this Court.

3. I may state that it was contended on behalf of the respondent no.2/Director of Education that the aforesaid issue of re-employment upto the age of 62 years cannot apply to the respondent school which is an unaided private school, but, I am not able to accept this argument inasmuch as all schools, whether aided or unaided, are bound to act in terms of the applicable provisions of the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973. In fact even the unaided minority schools are also governed by the different Sub-Sections of Section 8 of the Delhi School Education Act (except Section 8(2) which deals with the issue of requiring prior permission of the Director of Education before terminating the service of an employee/teacher) as so held in the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of G.Vallikumari Vs. Andhra Education Society and others, (2010) 2 SCC 49.and Sindhi Education Society vs Chief Secretary, Govt.of NCT of Delhi (2010) 8 SCC 49.

4. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and disposed of by directing the respondent no.1 School to consider the issue of re-employment of the petitioner upto the age of 62 years in accordance with law. The order which is passed by the respondent no.1 school be communicated to the petitioner within a period of two months from today.

5. In case the petitioner has any grievance, the petitioner will be at liberty to approach a Court of law on the order being passed by respondent no.1.

6. If the petitioner has not made any representation to the school, then, the petitioner will make the necessary representation to the school seeking reemployment, giving the detailed facts, within a period of one week from today.

7. Writ petition is allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid observations. FEBRUARY 25 2013 nt W.P.(C) No.180/2012

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2013 Same Parties Ms.Parveen vs Management, Little Flowers Public Sr. Sec. School Same Subject Education Same Judge Valmiki J. Mehta