CONTINUANCE IN SERVICE WITHOUT APPOINTMENT AGAINST SANCTIONED POST CONFERS NO RIGHT TO REGULARIZATION OR STATUTORY PAY SCALES

The Appellant was engaged as a Music Teacher by Respondent No. 1 (a minority institution) on 01.04.2016.

She alleged that she was promised a regular Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) pay scale after one year of probation, but no written appointment letter or contract was provided despite the mandate of Section 15 of the Delhi School Education (DSE) Act, 1973.

In 2019, the school re-characterized her service as a fresh contractual engagement with a consolidated salary.

Following the Appellant's demands for regular benefits, the school issued a Termination Order on 27.04.2023 citing "discontinuation of music training".

The Delhi School Tribunal dismissed her appeal against the termination, granting only three months' salary as damages.

A Single Judge of the High Court subsequently dismissed her Writ Petition, leading to this intra-court appeal.

1. Whether continuous service for seven years and the absence of a written contract entitle a teacher to be treated as a regular employee under the DSE Act and Rules in the absence of a formal recruitment process.

2. Whether the termination of a de facto long-term engagement without a show-cause notice or inquiry is sustainable if the initial appointment was not against a sanctioned post.

The court primarily applied Section 15 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, which governs the contract of service for employees in recognized private schools.

The principle that for an appointment to be legally enforceable as a "regular" position, it must be made against a sanctioned vacancy following the prescribed recruitment process, including public advertisements and adherence to eligibility criteria (age and qualifications) as defined by the DSE Act and Rules.

The Court reasoned that mere length of service (seven years) cannot override the statutory requirement of a valid initial appointment.

The Appellant failed to produce evidence that her recruitment involved a public advertisement or that she was appointed against a sanctioned post.

The Court noted the Tribunal’s finding that the Appellant was overage (49 years) at the time of appointment and did not meet the eligibility criteria under the DSE Act.

The Court held that even if the school failed its statutory duty under Section 15 to provide a written contract, this omission does not automatically confer "regular" status upon a contractual employee.

Since the right to a regular scale and tenure must be traceable to a valid appointment under the governing framework, and the Appellant's entry was not through the prescribed recruitment route, she held no enforceable legal right to reinstatement or TGT scales.

It held that continuous engagement, absence of a written contract, and alleged oral assurances do not establish an enforceable right to regularisation if the appointment was not made against a sanctioned post through the prescribed statutory process.

The Tribunal's award of three months' salary as damages remained the only relief granted.

No order as to costs was made.