Full Text
Translation output
~
A-3
% 27.09.2011
Present: Mr.Raman Duggal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Gaurang Kanth, Advocate for the respondent/MCD.
~-
+CONT. CAS (C) No.38/2011
*
Petitioner is aggrieved by the conduct of the respondents; his contention is that the directions contained in the order dated
23.11.2010 have not been complied with. In the reply filed by the department it has been categorically stated that the three petitioners who were teachers had been offered automatic re- employment in terms of the office order dated 26.6.2008. The :·- reply of the department also states that the directions contained in this order dated 23.11.2010 has given no direction for re- employment of the teachers as head masters. Learned counsel for '---- the respondent has also drawn attention of this Court to the order dated 30.8.2010 which had been passed in the Writ Petition
No.5808/2010 MCD Vs. Gjrj Raj Sharma & Ors. wherein it had been clarified that the aggrieved persons would not be reemployed
,, t7----- as head master/headmistress but purely as teachers; it is pointed out that this clarification had been given qua this same office order dated 26.6.2008.
Petitioner has not disputed the fact that automatic re- employment as a teacher has been granted to the petitioner; his grievance is that he should be given the benefit of head master.
2011:DHC:9772
._;
This is not the import of the directions contained in the order dated
23.11.2010. In view of the compliance affidavit of the department nothing survives in this petition. It is disposed of acbgly.
SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 nandan
INDERMEET KAUR, J. lr r-
::...._______ r;---.
!:'
2011:DHC:9772
A-3
% 27.09.2011
Present: Mr.Raman Duggal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Gaurang Kanth, Advocate for the respondent/MCD.
~-
+CONT. CAS (C) No.38/2011
*
Petitioner is aggrieved by the conduct of the respondents; his contention is that the directions contained in the order dated
23.11.2010 have not been complied with. In the reply filed by the department it has been categorically stated that the three petitioners who were teachers had been offered automatic re- employment in terms of the office order dated 26.6.2008. The :·- reply of the department also states that the directions contained in this order dated 23.11.2010 has given no direction for re- employment of the teachers as head masters. Learned counsel for '---- the respondent has also drawn attention of this Court to the order dated 30.8.2010 which had been passed in the Writ Petition
No.5808/2010 MCD Vs. Gjrj Raj Sharma & Ors. wherein it had been clarified that the aggrieved persons would not be reemployed
,, t7----- as head master/headmistress but purely as teachers; it is pointed out that this clarification had been given qua this same office order dated 26.6.2008.
Petitioner has not disputed the fact that automatic re- employment as a teacher has been granted to the petitioner; his grievance is that he should be given the benefit of head master.
2011:DHC:9772
._;
This is not the import of the directions contained in the order dated
23.11.2010. In view of the compliance affidavit of the department nothing survives in this petition. It is disposed of acbgly.
SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 nandan
INDERMEET KAUR, J. lr r-
::...._______ r;---.
!:'
2011:DHC:9772
JUDGMENT