SWAPNA SOOD Vs. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION
LAWS(DLH)-2007-9-432
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on September 01,2007

Swapna Sood Appellant
VERSUS
DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of interview dated 17th February, 2005, held or the appointment of Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) (Chemistry) against regular post in respondent No. 3 school. The petitioner has further sought direction for regularization of her appointment as PGT (Chemistry) in respondent No. 3 school on the basis of Combined Screening Board (CSB) Exam held in the year 2004 and interview in May, 2004.
(2.) Brief facts necessary for the decision of the present petition in nutshell, inter alia, are that the petitioner was appointed initially on contract basis by respondent No. 3 w.e.f. 14th July, 2003 to 30th April, 2004. As per the rules/procedure/guidelines formulated by respondent No. 2 for seeking appointment of a regular teacher against the post of TGT/PGT, the requirement is to clear the test of Combined Screening Board and after qualifying such test the candidates are given score cards. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had qualified the written test of CSB and she was issued a score card, which has been placed by the petitioner on record. This score card indicates that serial number of the petitioner is 41866 and it further shows that the petitioner had qualified written exam for Combined Screening Board held in the year 2004. This screening card was issued in favour of the petitioner on 27th January, 2004. When a person qualifies the test whether CSB or LSB, that makes him or her eligible to appear for the final interview either for the post of TGT or PGT. The petitioner stated that she was called for interview by the Selection Committee constituted by respondent No. 2 society for her appointment against a regular vacancy of PGT (Chemistry). The petitioner further stated that the interview of the petitioner was conducted as per the rules/procedures adopted by the Selection Committee, which comprised of the representative of the Chairman of the school, head of the school and expert in the subject besides other members. The petitioner further stated that the petitioner had duly qualified the said interview. The petitioner further stated that even after qualifying the interview the petitioner was not given any appointment letter, but was again appointed on contractual basis vide appointment letter dated 14th July, 2004 for a period of one year w.e.f. 1st July, 2004 to 30th June, 2005. When the said appointment was not given to the petitioner on the basis of her qualifying the said interview, she was told by the school that still the petitioner will have to qualify the Combined Screening Board Interview and only thereafter she will be considered for the appointment on the said post of PGT (Chemistry). With this impression in mind the petitioner kept on waiting for the CSB interview to be conducted by respondents No. 2 and 3. In the year 2005 CSB was held but the petitioner was not called for the interview and she was informed that 12 candidates were called for interview by the selection board for selecting candidates for the post of PGT (Chemistry) available in the cluster of three schools of respondent No. 2 society. The petitioner was also intimated that percentage of the last candidate called for interview in the CSB by the selection board was 62.5%. Aggrieved with the said actions of respondent No. 2, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. The main thrust of argument of the counsel for the petitioner revolves around the selection of the petitioner against the regular post of PGT (Chemistry) after she was declared as successful by the Selection Committee. The counsel had drawn my attention to the letter dated 21st June, 2004 issued by respondent No. 2. This letter is a kind of covering letter, forwarding therewith, the result of the selected candidates for which the interview was held by the Selection Committee. This letter is addressed by respondent No. 2 to all the schools of their cluster and it states that appointment letters in terms of the said selection be issued in favour of the selected candidates as per the terms and conditions laid in the same. The name of the present petitioner appears at serial No. 8 against the post of PGT (Chemistry). The same indicates that she was duly selected by the said Selection Committee. The counsel contended that once the petitioner was selected by the Selection Board and the society had given directions to all the concerned schools of their cluster, then as to why the appointment letter in terms of the said letter dated 21st June, 2004 was not issued to the petitioner. The counsel also contended that once the petitioner was selected against a regular post then where was the need to appoint the petitioner on contractual basis from 1st July, 2004 to 30th June, 2005. The counsel for the petitioner also contended that once the petitioner was selected against the said regular post of PGT (Chemistry), then, no fresh process of appointment on the said post as far as Army Public School, Dhaula Kuan is concerned, could have taken place. The counsel also contended that the said selection process in the year 2005 was illegally undertaken by respondent No. 2 with a mala fide intention to deprive the petitioner from the said post of PGT (Chemistry). The counsel further contended that the mala fide intention of respondent No. 2 was apparent from the fact that a wrong information was rendered to the petitioner by stating that 12 candidates were called for the interview while the list of candidates, placed by the respondent on record showed that there were 15 candidates, who had participated in the interview. The counsel further contended that the petitioner was intimated that the last candidate, who was called for interview, possessed 62.5% marks, while Ms. Renu Aggarwal, who was shown at serial No. 13, scored 187 marks in the written examination out of total 350 marks, which approximately comes to 53% marks. Counsel also contends that the said candidate, who had secured 53% marks was not only permitted for the interview, but she was also recommended as one of the selected candidates.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.