Judgment:
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) No.2009/1995 % January 08, 2013 SH.MAHABIR SINGH Through: ...... Petitioner Mr. U.S.Chaudhary, Adv. VERSUS THE ADMINISTRATOR GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ...... Respondent Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.
MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner-Sh.Mahabir Singh seeking benefits of employment from 8.8.1977 instead of from 1.7.1984 which has been granted by the Director of Education/respondent No.2.
2. The facts of the case are that petitioner claims to have been appointed as a TGT (Hindi) in the school-Vijay Jyoti Co-Education Middle School, Usmanpur, Delhi-53. A typed copy of the appointment letter of the petitioner as TGT (Hindi) has been filed as annexure P-1 (page 13 to the petition). The petitioner claims that the school was a recognized school when the petitioner took employment with the school and which was thereafter granted grant-in-aid by the Directorate of Education on 20.1.1981 with retrospective effect from 1.8.1979. The petitioner pleads that at the time of ordering grant-in-aid, three posts of language teachers were sanctioned and of which two posts were given to TGT (Hindi) and one post was given to TGT (Sanskrit). The post of TGT (Sanskrit) was given to one Sh.B.N.Tripathi and which is not in issue because the petitioner claims benefit of the post of TGT in Hindi. So far as the two posts of TGT (Hindi) are concerned, one post was granted on the date of granting of grant-in-aid to one Sh. Dharamviri Devi who, the petitioner does not dispute, was senior to him. The petitioner basically disputes the appointment granted as TGT (Hindi) to one Sh.Hari Chand who has been arrayed as respondent No.5 to the present petition. The petitioner pleads that firstly the petitioner was appointed not as TGT (General) but as TGT (Hindi) when he was appointed on 8.8.1977 and that Sh.Hari Chand/respondent No.5 though was appointed earlier in the year 1973, however, was appointed to the post of TGT (General) and not TGT (Hindi) and therefore so far as the post of TGT (Hindi) is concerned, it is the petitioner who had to get appointed to the post of TGT (Hindi) with effect from the date of his appointment in the school i.e. 8.8.1977.
3. There are two basic issues which call for determination in the present petition. The first issue is whether the petitioner was appointed as TGT (Hindi) or TGT (General) when he was appointed by the school on 8.8.1977 and the second issue is whether the respondent No.5/Sh.Hari Chand was appointed as TGT (Hindi) or TGT (General) when he was appointed by the school in the year 1973. For the sake of completion of narration, I must state that the school as on the date of filing of the writ petition was taken over by the Administrator of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi.
4. So far as the first issue as to whether the petitioner was appointed as TGT (Hindi) or TGT (General) on 8.8.1977, the petitioner has relied upon his appointment letter filed as Annexure P-1 (page 13 to the petition). A reference to this document shows that this is only a typed copy and neither the original nor the photocopy of the original document has been filed. Since there was an issue as to whether the petitioner was appointed on 8.8.1977 as TGT (Hindi) or TGT (General), it was incumbent upon the petitioner in this writ petition which is now pending since over 18 years to file his original letter of appointment, but the petitioner has failed to do the same. I am saying this more so because the respondents No. 1 to 3/Directorate of Education and the Administrator have filed a counter affidavit and annexed therewith as Annexure-C, photocopy of the appointment letter of the petitioner and which shows quite clear overwriting and manipulation after the expression TGT i.e some other expression was written but it has been changed to (Hindi). The counter affidavit of respondents No. 1 to 3 states that this manipulation was done by the then Principal-Sh.Pheru Singh of the school. In view of all the aforesaid facts especially taking into account that petitioner only filed a typed copy of the appointment letter and neither the original nor the photocopy of the original and Department has filed photocopy of the appointment letter of the petitioner which shows overwriting/manipulation after the expression TGT of (Hindi), I am of the opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out a case that the appointment of the petitioner was as TGT (Hindi) on 8.8.1977.
5. Further, the petitioner is not correct in stating that the respondent No.5-Sh.Hari Chand was appointed as TGT (General) and not TGT (Hindi). Once again, the petitioner has filed only a typed copy of the appointment letter of the respondent No.5/Sh.Hari Chand showing as TGT (General), however the respondent No.5/Sh.Hari Chand has alongwith his affidavit filed a photocopy of his appointment letter dated 12.7.1973 which shows the appointment of respondent No.5/Sh.Hari Chand as language teacher (Hindi) and there is no overwriting or manipulation on this appointment letter dated 12.7.1973 that the appointment was as a language teacher (General) and thereafter it has been manipulated/overwritten to make it language teacher (Hindi).
6. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that neither the petitioner was appointed as TGT (Hindi) with effect from 8.8.1977 and also that the respondent No.5/Sh.Hari Chand was in fact appointed earlier than the petitioner as TGT (Hindi) in the year 1973 and that too not as TGT (General) as alleged by the petitioner.
7. In my opinion, there is another reason for me to dismiss the writ petition because the petitioner was conveyed appointment to the post of language teacher by the letter dated 27.5.1987 issued by the Directorate of Education, however, the present writ petition is filed as many as seven years later. Though on behalf of the petitioner, it is sought to be argued that the petitioner had made representation as to manipulation of school record and hence the delay, however, merely because some show-cause notice was issued to the school, cannot mean that there was manipulation of record as there is no final order and the petitioner ought to have filed this petition within a reasonable time from 27.5.87 to claim benefits denied to him on account of his alleged appointment as language teacher i.e TGT (Hindi) only from 1.7.1984 and not 8.8.1977. In any case, even on merits as stated above the petitioner has no merits in his case.
8. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. VALMIKI J.
MEHTA, J JANUARY 08 2013 ak