Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 3343/2012
th
% 30 August , 2013
SUMEET KAUR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Hanu Bhaskar, Advocate.
versus
DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. J. K. Sharma, Advocate for
respondent No.1.
Mr. Ashok Kashyap, Advocate for
respondent No.2.
Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate for
respondent No.3.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
C.M. No.12145/2013
Application is allowed and the counter affidavit filed by the
respondent No.2 is taken on record.
C.M. stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) No.3343 /2012 Page 1 of 3
+ W.P.(C) No.3343/2012
1. This writ petition impugns the appointment of respondent No.3
as TGT (English) in respondent No.2-school. On a query put to counsel for
the petitioner, it is admitted that respondent No.3 was appointed as TGT in
the respondent No.2-school way back in the year 1999 and regularized by
the respondent No.1/Directorate of Education in the year 2001. Therefore,
this writ petition filed in the year 2012 is liable to be dismissed on the
ground of delay and laches inasmuch as the appointment which is challenged
of respondent No.3 was made thirteen years back in the year 1999 and
confirmed in the year 2001 i.e eleven years back.
2. I put a query to the counsel for the petitioner that whether the
petitioner has made any averment in the writ petition that petitioner was not
aware of the appointment of respondent No.3 as TGT in the year 1999 and
confirmed in the year 2001. Counsel for the petitioner on detailed
examination of the writ petition could not point out any averment made in
the writ petition that petitioner did not have knowledge of appointment and
regularization of respondent No.3 in the years 1999 and 2001 respectively.
3. In view of the above, after a delay of about 11 years, the writ
petition cannot be filed to challenge an appointment and confirmation
W.P.(C) No.3343 /2012 Page 2 of 3
thereof. I may note that fight is actually with respect to promotion post of
PGT and for which review DPC has to be held in terms of order dated
9.3.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C)
No.585/2008. Review DPC is still to be conducted. It is only after
declaration of result of DPC, it would be known that whether the petitioner
or the respondent no.3 is or is not successful in seeking promotion.
Therefore, really even qua the issue of promotion there is no cause of action,
at this stage, and the writ petition is pre-mature on the aspect of entitlement
of promotion of either the petitioner or respondent No.3 or any other
successful candidate.
4. Writ petition is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear
their own costs.
AUGUST30, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
W.P.(C) No.3343 /2012 Page 3 of 3
+ W.P.(C) No. 3343/2012
th
% 30 August , 2013
SUMEET KAUR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Hanu Bhaskar, Advocate.
versus
DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. J. K. Sharma, Advocate for
respondent No.1.
Mr. Ashok Kashyap, Advocate for
respondent No.2.
Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate for
respondent No.3.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
C.M. No.12145/2013
Application is allowed and the counter affidavit filed by the
respondent No.2 is taken on record.
C.M. stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) No.3343 /2012 Page 1 of 3
+ W.P.(C) No.3343/2012
1. This writ petition impugns the appointment of respondent No.3
as TGT (English) in respondent No.2-school. On a query put to counsel for
the petitioner, it is admitted that respondent No.3 was appointed as TGT in
the respondent No.2-school way back in the year 1999 and regularized by
the respondent No.1/Directorate of Education in the year 2001. Therefore,
this writ petition filed in the year 2012 is liable to be dismissed on the
ground of delay and laches inasmuch as the appointment which is challenged
of respondent No.3 was made thirteen years back in the year 1999 and
confirmed in the year 2001 i.e eleven years back.
2. I put a query to the counsel for the petitioner that whether the
petitioner has made any averment in the writ petition that petitioner was not
aware of the appointment of respondent No.3 as TGT in the year 1999 and
confirmed in the year 2001. Counsel for the petitioner on detailed
examination of the writ petition could not point out any averment made in
the writ petition that petitioner did not have knowledge of appointment and
regularization of respondent No.3 in the years 1999 and 2001 respectively.
3. In view of the above, after a delay of about 11 years, the writ
petition cannot be filed to challenge an appointment and confirmation
W.P.(C) No.3343 /2012 Page 2 of 3
thereof. I may note that fight is actually with respect to promotion post of
PGT and for which review DPC has to be held in terms of order dated
9.3.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C)
No.585/2008. Review DPC is still to be conducted. It is only after
declaration of result of DPC, it would be known that whether the petitioner
or the respondent no.3 is or is not successful in seeking promotion.
Therefore, really even qua the issue of promotion there is no cause of action,
at this stage, and the writ petition is pre-mature on the aspect of entitlement
of promotion of either the petitioner or respondent No.3 or any other
successful candidate.
4. Writ petition is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear
their own costs.
AUGUST30, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
W.P.(C) No.3343 /2012 Page 3 of 3