Mr. Valmiki J. Mehta, J. - (1.) (Oral) - By this writ petition under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner impugns the order of the Delhi School Tribunal (DST) dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner herein against the order/letter of the respondent no. 1/school dated 28.6.2013 relieving the petitioner of her duties with the respondent no. 1/school.
(2.) Petitioner filed an appeal before the DST pleading that she was appointed by the respondent no.1/school as PGT (Biology) on 3.2.2010 and she had continuously worked thereafter with the respondent no.1/school till 28.6.2013, and therefore, petitioner cannot be terminated from her services by the impugned letter dated 28.6.2013. Petitioner effectively pleads and argues that the petitioner had worked continuously for over three years with the respondent no.1/school, hence petitioner should be granted the benefits of the judgments passed by this Court in the cases of Hamdard Public School v. Directorate of Education and Anr. 202 (2013) DLT 111 and three other connected cases with the lead case being Army Public School and Anr. v. Narendra Singh Nain and Anr. in W.P.(C) No. 1439/2013 decided on 30.8.2013 . The judgments in the cases of Hamdard Public School (supra) and Army Public School and Anr. (supra) have been followed in the case of Sonia Mehta v. Dayanand Model School and Ors. in W.P.(C) No. 3061/2011 decided on 6.9.2013 and which judgment was filed by the petitioner before the DST.
(3.) No doubt, if an employee works with a school in Delhi continuously for three years, then, such an employee will be entitled to the benefit of ratios of the judgments passed by this Court in the cases of Hamdard Public School (supra) and Army Public School (supra), however, it is seen that the petitioner has not worked continuously with the respondent no.1/school in Delhi for over three years. This is because petitioner no doubt got employment with the respondent no.1/school as a PGT(Biology) as per the respondent no.1's letter dated 3.2.2010, however, petitioner thereafter had resigned from her services with the respondent no.1/school by submitting her handwritten resignation letter dated 23.7.2011 to the respondent no.1/school. This resignation of the petitioner from the respondent no.1/school was approved by the Directorate of Education vide its letter dated 22.9.2011. Petitioner thereafter worked with a school no doubt under the same management of the respondent no.1/school, however, the said subsequent school where the petitioner got employment was not a school in Delhi governed by the Delhi School Education Act & Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') but the said subsequent school was a school which was situated in Haryana at Kablana, District Jhajjar. Petitioner worked in this school in Haryana from 24.7.2011 to 31.5.2012 from where she received her pay by cheques and had also in fact applied for maternity leave from this school in Haryana. These aspects with respect to petitioner getting her pay by cheques in Haryana as also getting maternity leave from school are noted by the DST in paras 14 and 19 of the impugned judgment. A school in Haryana is not governed by the Delhi School Education Act. It is therefore clear from the records that the petitioner undoubtedly did not continue to work for three years with the respondent no.1/school which is governed by the Act, but, her services continued after her resignation from the respondent no.1/school with the school in Haryana which is not governed by the Act. Petitioner's services therefore are not continuous for three years under the school governed by the Act, and hence petitioner cannot get benefit of the ratios of the judgments of this Court in the cases of Hamdard Public School (supra) and Army Public School (supra).;