KHRIST RAJA SECONDARY SCHOOL v. RENU SHARMA & ANOTHER

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1 By way of this petition it is contended that the respondent has committed a contempt of the order of the Court dated 24.10.2008 passed in W.P.(C) No.530/2001 St. Anthony’s Girls Senior Secondary School & Others Vs. The Government of NCT of Delhi. The relevant extract of the order reads as follows:- “….. We censure the interference in the Management of the School 2011:DHC:3549 perpetrated by Mr. Kaushik. We clarify that the management of the School has the untrammeled and unbridled powers to choose any person who meets with the qualifications set-down for a Vice-Principal and who is chosen by a Selection Committee constituted in consonance with Rule 96.

17 In this analysis, we strike down column 8 of the impugned RRs. The effect is that, as recorded in Column 3 thereof, these posts shall be filled up by selection from amongst persons who have offered their candidatures.

18. Since the conduct and position adopted by the Director of Education is meritless, and is in variance with the repeated enunciation of the law reiterated by the Supreme Court in several cases, the Director of Education shall pay costs of these proceedings quantified at `50,000/-. Out of this sum, `15,000/- to be paid to each of the petitioners and the balance Rupees 20,000/- shall be deposited with the Prime Minister Relief Fund within thirty days from today.”

2 Learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that in terms of the aforenoted directions, the candidature of all the concerned candidates had been considered in accordance with the Rules of the Department and sister Meena Naidu had been found unfit for appointment as Vice Principal; it is submitted that this had been communicated to the petitioner school vide communication dated 05.11.2009 wherein the department had rejected the appointment in respect of Sister Meena Naidu for the post of Vice Principal.

3 Admittedly this order has not been challenged in any court. In the written submission filed by the department it has been explained that the essential requirement for the post of Vice- Principal is either that the person should have a five years experience as PGT or 10 years experience as TGT; two certificates filed by the petitioner dated 28.02.2005 dated 02.12.2008 had been considered but the petitioner did not have the minimum prescribed five years experience as a PGT.

4 The order of 24.10.2008 as noted supra had given a direction to the department that the posts including the post of Vice Principal shall be filled by a selection amongst those persons who had filed up their candidature. There was no specific directions that Sister Meena Naidu irrespective of the fact, whether she fulfilled the requisite criteria as required to be for appointment to the post of Vice Principal has to be appointed; in fact her candidature had been rejected and communicated vide communication dated 05.11.2009; this was prior to the filing of this contempt petition.

5 There is no other dispute raised or urged. The first order of this Court had noted that a prima-facie contempt is made out as the salary of the teachers had been withheld; this is not pressed today. Only contention is the appointment of Sister Meena Naidu to the post of Vice Principal. The explanation furnished in the written submissions filed by the department shows that the Sister Meena Naidu did not fulfill the necessary eligibility criteria for the appointment to the post of Vice Principal. No contempt has been made out.

INDERMEET KAUR, J. JULY 15, 2011 a