Full Text
WP(C) Nos.1093/2012 and 1095/2012 April 22, 2013
JUDGMENT
1. W.P.(C) No.1093/2012 SANTOSH KUMAR ARYA..... Petitioner Through: Mr. K.K. Jha, Advocate.
VERSUS
THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT.
2. W.P.(C) No.1095/2012 SH.
VERSUS
THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT.
JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL) 2013:DHC:2003 WP(C) Nos.1093 & 1095 of 2012 2 of 3 W.P.(C) No.1093/2012
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner involving Rule 110 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 seeking re-employment for a period of two years on his retirement on 31.12.2010.
2. Admittedly, the date of retirement of the petitioner is 31.12.2010 and therefore if the petitioner wanted re-employment for two years from the date of his retirement, then, the petitioner should have applied for re-employment well before his retirement date or in any case immediately after his retirement. Petitioner however applied for reemployment only on 31.1.2012 (Annexure P-7). Petitioner applied because the petitioner wanted to take benefit of the judgment dated 8.7.2011 in W.P.(C) No.4703 of 2011 whereby principals were also held entitled as teachers for two years of re-employment.
3. The writ petition is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed because benefit of another judgment can be given to the petitioner only if the petitioner had otherwise applied in time for re-employment. Merely because in some other case an order is passed, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit although the petitioner never applied in time for re-employment of two years in terms of Rule 110 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973. It is not WP(C) Nos.1093 & 1095 of 2012 3 of 3 permissible for any employee to sleep over the matter and thereafter seek reemployment for a period of two years which in any case is not a matter of right and now the settled law is that a teacher is only to be considered for reemployment: there being no automatic re-employment vide Shashi Kohli Vs. DOE (2011)179 DLT 440.
4. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. + W.P.(C) No.1095/2012
5. In view of the conclusions given above, since the facts of the present case are more or less identical to the facts in W.P.(C) No.1093/2012, this writ petition is also dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J APRIL 22, 2013 Ne