DAV Model School v. Directorate of Education

1. This appeal is directed against order dated 8 October 2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) 4431/2017.

2. The aforesaid writ petition was preferred by one Neetu Kumar, who is Respondent 4 herein, for a direction to the appellant school to release her salary in the grade of Trained Graduate Teacher w.e.f. 19 September 2006. During the course of the proceedings, however, Respondent 4 pressed the relief only with respect to grant of financial upgradations under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP) as prayed in prayer clause (iv) and (v) of the writ petition.

3. During the course of the writ petition, the following order came to be passed by this Court on 29 August 2019. “On 25.09.2017, ld. counsel for the petitioner stated before the Court that the school may grant benefits of Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP) to her. Today, ld. counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that the petitioner asserts the relief limited to the said aspect, with the consequential reliefs as prayed in clause (iv) and (v). During the course of hearing, ld. counsel for the respondents concedes that the petitioner is entitled to second MACP from July, 2017. In the given factual conspectus and the totality of the facts and circumstances, it is directed that the respondents shall grant second MACP to the petitioner from July, 2017 within four weeks from today. The arrears of benefits of second MACP shall be released to the petitioner within four weeks thereafter. It is made clear that that question of payment of interest is kept open. List on 20.11.2019.”

4. The aforesaid order was never challenged by the appellant or questioned by way of review, modification, recall or any other cognate proceedings, it, therefore, attained finality.

5. It appears that, despite having conceded before the learned Single Judge that the Respondent 4 was entitled to the benefits of the second MACP w.e.f. July 2017, the said benefits were not released.

6. The impugned order has been passed finally disposing of the writ petition.

7. The learned Single Judge has taken a serious view of the fact that there has been no complete compliance with the order dated 29 August 2019.

8. In view of the aforesaid, the learned Single Judge has observed and directed as under:

9. The present appeal has been filed assailing the aforesaid order dated 8 October 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge.

10. We have heard Mr. Atul Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant at some length.

11. On the Court querying as to why the impugned order of the learned Single Judge should be interfered with, given the concession made before the learned Single Judge on 29 August 2019, Mr. Kumar submits that the concession is contrary to law as well as the record.

12. We are not prepared to countenance this submission at this stage of time. Nearly 5 and half years have passed since the aforesaid statement was made. Even on the date of passing of the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, over five years had passed since the making of the said statement. During this period of five years, no attempt was ever made to recall, modify or challenge the order dated 29 August 2019.

13. A litigant before the Court is bound by the statement made to the Court. If the litigant seeks to resile from the statement, it has to do so in accordance with known legal procedure. It cannot wish away the statement and, when the writ petition is finally decided relying on it, seek to contend that the statement was not in accordance with law.

14. Allowing such a practice would throw legal procedure into complete disarray.