Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) No. 3502/2012 & CM 7373/2012 (Stay)
10th September , 2013 RANJEET KUMAR ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anil Kr. Chaudhary, Adv.
Through: Ms. Navratn Chaudhary and Ms. T.
Pongener, Advs. for R-1 and 2.
Mr. R.K.Kapoor and Ms. Rekha Giri, Adv. for R-3.
Mr. S.C.Meena, DEO, Zone-27.
To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. By this writ petition, petitioner who is an employee of the respondent no.3-school seeks the relief for being appointed to the post of LDC by promotion and after holding of DPC. Prayers are made for issuing of directions to conduct the DPC for promoting the petitioner to the post of LDC. I may note that in the prayer clauses there is a typing mistake for holding of the DPC for the post of PGT (English). Counsel for the petitioner 2013:DHC:4546 admits that this is a typographical error and the prayer is actually for the post of LDC.
2. On 18.4.2013, the following order was passed:- “Counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner will positively file an application for amendment, if so necessitated to point out as to whether the respondent no.3-school is governed by its own recruitment rules or it has adopted the recruitment rules of the Government of NCT of Delhi inasmuch as whereas the respondent no.3 states that post of LDC is to be filled in by direct recruitment, the petitioner claims that the post should be filled in by promotion. List on 10th September, 2013.”
3. An additional affidavit has been filed by the petitioner in which it is conceded that the respondent no.3-school, which is a recognized school, is governed by the recruitment rules framed by the Director of Education. The Director of Education has filed its affidavit dated 17.4.2013, in which, in response to paras 4 and 5 of the writ petition, it is stated that in terms of the circular dated 27.10.1993 the post of LDC in government aided schools is to be filled up by direct recruitment. Therefore, it is clear that in the case of the petitioner that appointment of LDC in the respondent no.3-school has to be by promotion and not by direct recruitment is not correct. Since the petition of the petitioner is based on his claim for being appointed as LDC by promotion, whereas the post in question of LDC in the respondent no.3 is to be filled in by direct recruitment, no relief can be granted to the petitioner as prayed.
4. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
SEPTEMBER 10, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ib