JUDGMENT
J.M. Malik, J.
1. The present writ petition swirls around an interesting law point, that is, whether a person appointed by the Principal or Vice Principal, dehors rules and not against any regular post, can seek relief of regularisation of that post and payment of arrears in accordance with the Minimum Wages Act from the Directorate of Education.
2. The facts of the instant writ petition are these. The petitioner, Ms. Sheela, was appointed as Domestic Science Helper on 2nd March, 1991 vide office order issued by respondent No. 2, Principal, Government Girls Senior Secondary School No. 2, West Patel Nagar, Delhi 8. The petitioner worked there up to 30th July, 2000 continuously as Domestic Science Helper. On 23rd July, 2000 the petitioner submitted a representation through the President, All India Anti Corruption and Crime Prevention Organisation to the Principal, respondent No. 2, with the request that her temporary appointment as Domestic Science Helper may be regularised against the vacancy of Regular Domestic Science Helper. On 1st August, 2000, the respondent No. 2 verbally terminated the petitioner’s service illegally without giving her any notice, compensation and retrenchment letter as per Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner requested through her representation-cum-one month notice dated 1st August, 2000 to respondent No. 1, Director, Education Department, Government of Delhi, with copies to Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Delhi, Education Department, District Education Officer, District West Karampura, New Delhi and Smt.Neelam Gulati, respondent No. 2 regarding her reappointment to the post of Domestic Science Helper or equivalent post in Government Girls Senior Secondary School No. 2, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi and to pay her arrears of salary with effect from 2nd March, 1991 to 31st July, 2000 in compliance of the Minimum Wages Act. However, these efforts on the part of the petitioner did not ring the bell. Ultimately, she filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers. To reinstate her with full back wages. She be granted continuity of service with retrospective effect. Treat this intervening period as period spent on duty. Lastly respondents be ordered to pay her arrears of salary according to the Minimum Wages Act.
3. The present petition was contested by the respondents on the following grounds. As per school records there is no appointment letter issued to the petitioner by any competent authority appointing her to a regular post of Domestic Science Helper. The Principal and Vice Principal of the school are not entitled to make any such appointment. An appointment has to be made in accordance with the rules by the Government of NCT of Delhi. Vide circular dated 31st December, 1991, the directions were issued to all concerned not to engage any part-time workers. They were also directed to remove any such part-time workers as engaged in contravention of the earlier various office Memorandums in this regard. It is explained that the Vice Principal had no authority to make any such appointment. She had apparently of her own engaged the petitioner as a part-time Domestic Science Helper and paid her salary from the Parents Teacher Association Fund. Serious note of the matter was taken and letters were issued by the Directorate of Education on 21st October, 1998, 16th December, 1999 and on 21st December, 2000. It is pointed out that the letters dated 7th April, 1997 and 28th April, 1997, allegedly written by the Vice Principal, wherein the Vice Principal had written to the Education Officer that the petitioner is working in the school and is being paid from the Boys Fund and that the petitioner be given promotion to pay higher wages from the Boys Fund, have been written at the time when the Vice Principal was retiring on 30th April, 1997. It is pointed out that the petitioner has no right to seek reinstatement or regularisation under the above-said circumstances.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Counsel for the petitioner argued that since the petitioner has worked for more than 240 days, therefore, she is entitled to be regularised. He admitted that no appointment letter was issued in favor of the petitioner by the Directorate of Education. He lastly submitted that she has been marking her presence in the attendance register which fact was not disputed by the counsel for the respondent.
5. All these arguments are lame of strength. A Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 716/2004 titled as NCT of Delhi and Ors. v. Champa Devi, decided on 6th February, 2006, was pleased to observe,
12. As regards Smt. Subhashini, she was a conginent paid staff and was regularised by the Department of Education as per Rules. On the contrary, the petitioner was not working on a permanent capacity and she had only been privately engaged by the P.T.A. Hence, the question of regularising her does not arise as her job is not of a permanent nature. Only permanent and regular employees are entitled for the benefit of annual casual leave etc., and hence the petitioner, not being so, is not entitled to the same.
13. From the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the petition and it should have been dismissed but it has wrongly been allowed by the learned Single Judge. We are of the opinion that the petitioner was only engaged by the Parents Teacher Association and was not a regular employee of the school.
14. In the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has observed:
It is strange that the principal of a Government school has allowed a private employment to be effected in this manner.
15. In our opinion, there was no bar to such engagement of the petitioner. No rule has been shown to us which prohibits it.
16. Since the petitioner was never appointed by respondent No. 2, hence, obviously, she cannot be regularized nor be made to pay the salary of Home Science Helper.
17. For the reason given above, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside.
6. Similar view was taken in another Division Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. 13390/2004 titled as Rajesh Kumar and Ors. v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr., decided on 13th August, 2004.
7. It is thus crystal clear that the petitioner’s appointment/engagement was not against any post as such nor in any scale. Her appointment was admittedly dehors rules and not against any regular post. The Vice Principal had no authority to write to the Directorate of Education to regularise her illegally. Did not she make a vain attempt to help the petitioner out of way, for the reasons best known to her, that, too, at the eve of her retirement. No value is to be pinned with such like letters. In the light of this discussion, I find that the present writ petition has no merits. The same is therefore dismissed.