{"id":268905,"date":"2011-05-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-05-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-shiva-ditta-juneja-vs-director-of-education-and-anr-on-27-may-2011"},"modified":"2016-07-21T20:16:40","modified_gmt":"2016-07-21T14:46:40","slug":"dr-shiva-ditta-juneja-vs-director-of-education-and-anr-on-27-may-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-shiva-ditta-juneja-vs-director-of-education-and-anr-on-27-may-2011","title":{"rendered":"Dr. Shiva Ditta Juneja vs Director Of Education And Anr on 27 May, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Dr. Shiva Ditta Juneja vs Director Of Education And Anr on 27 May, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw<\/div>\n
            *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n                                            Date of decision: 27th May, 2011.\n\n+                           W.P.(C) 1835\/2011\n\n         DR. SHIVA DITTA JUNEJA                       ..... Petitioner\n                       Through: Mr. Joginder Sukhija, Adv.\n\n                                   Versus\n\n         DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AND ANR             ..... Respondents\n                      Through: Mr. Shariq Mohammad, Adv. for\n                               R-1\n                               Mr. K.K. Selopal, Adv. for R-2.\n                               Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Adv.\n                               for applicant in CM No.5348\/2011.\nCORAM :-\nHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW\n1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may                        No\n         be allowed to see the judgment?\n\n2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?             No\n\n3.       Whether the judgment should be reported            No\n         in the Digest?\n\nRAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.\n<\/pre>\n
1.       The petitioner having joined the respondent no.2 Sant Nirankari<\/p>\n
Senior Secondary School, Pahar Ganj, Delhi – 110 055, a Government<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)1835\/2011                                                 Page 1 of 15<\/span>
\n aided school, as a Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) on 16th March, 1981 was<\/p>\n
on 7th March, 2008 promoted as the Principal of the said school, due to<\/p>\n
retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 31st March, 2011 of 60<\/p>\n
years as prescribed in Rule 110 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973.<\/p>\n
The petitioner relies on Notification No.F.30-3(28)\/III\/Coord\/07(Part<\/p>\n
file)\/3426-3439 dated 31st December, 2007 of the respondent no.1<\/p>\n
Directorate of Education (DOE) of Govt. of NCT of Delhi to claim<\/p>\n
automatic re-employment till he attains the age of 62 years. The said<\/p>\n
Notification is as under:-\n<\/p>\n
\n
                                 “Notification<\/p>\n
               The Hon’ble Lt. Governor, Government of National
\n         Capital Territory of Delhi is pleased to allow the automatic re-
\n         employment of all retiring teachers in Government Aided
\n         schools upto PGT level, subject to fitness and vigilance
\n         clearance, till they attain the age of 62 years or till clearance
\n         from Government of India for extended retirement age is
\n         received, whichever is earlier, and subject to the following
\n         conditions:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         1. This shall be effected only in those Aided schools wherever a
\n         request is received in the Directorate of Education from the
\n         Managing Committee for re-employment of teachers, clearly
\n         indicating the Management’s willingness to meet the respective<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)1835\/2011                                                Page 2 of 15<\/span>
\n          additional proportionate expenditure on the salary of the
\n         teachers concerned.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             The terms and conditions of re-employment are being
\n             issued separately.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
2.       The       petitioner   also   relies   on   another   Order   No.        F.30-<\/p>\n
3(28)\/III\/Coord\/07\/Pt. file\/180-220 dated 15th February, 2008 of the DOE<\/p>\n
of Govt. of NCT of Delhi issued in pursuance to the Notification aforesaid<\/p>\n
and conveying the instructions\/guidelines of re-employment and which<\/p>\n
also inter alia provides as under:-\n<\/p>\n
\n
                   “The teachers upto PGT level of the Government Aided
\n                   schools, GNCT of Delhi, who have retired on or after
\n                   31.01.2007, shall be eligible for consideration for re-
\n                   employment against clear vacancy upto his\/her attaining
\n                   the age of 62 years.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
3.       The petitioner on 24th December, 2010 accordingly applied for re-<\/p>\n
employment and the Managing Committee of the respondent no.2 School<\/p>\n
in the meeting held on 17th February, 2011 expressed willingness to bear<\/p>\n
the respective additional proportionate expenditure (5%) on the salary of<\/p>\n
the petitioner “for a period of one year on contract basis after approval of<\/p>\n
the said proposal by the DOE” and conveyed the same to the petitioner<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)1835\/2011                                                   Page 3 of 15<\/span>
\n vide letter dated 21st February, 2011 and vide another letter dated 21st<\/p>\n
February, 2011 sought approval from the respondent no.1 DOE to re-<\/p>\n
employ the petitioner on contract basis w.e.f. 1st April, 2011 for one year.<\/p>\n
4.       The respondent no.1 DOE however vide its letter dated 10th March,<\/p>\n
2011 declined to grant approval for re-employment of the petitioner for the<\/p>\n
reason of the petitioner being “not eligible” for re-employment “as per the<\/p>\n
Notification No. F-30-3(28)\/III\/Coord\/07\/1036-1053 dated 16th July,<\/p>\n
2008”. The respondent no.2 accordingly vide its letter dated 14th March,<\/p>\n
2011 to the petitioner withdrew its earlier letter dated 21st February, 2011<\/p>\n
accepting the request of the petitioner for re-employment.<\/p>\n
5.       The present petition has been filed impugning the letter dated 10 th<\/p>\n
March, 2011 of the respondent no.1 DOE and seeking directions for re-<\/p>\n
employment. The writ petition was accompanied with an application for an<\/p>\n
interim relief to restrain the respondent no.2 School from enforcing its<\/p>\n
letter dated 14th March, 2011 issued on the basis of the order dated 10th<\/p>\n
March, 2011 of the DOE. Notice of the petition and of the application for<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)1835\/2011                                               Page 4 of 15<\/span>
\n interim relief was issued and it was further provided that appointment if<\/p>\n
any made in place of the petitioner after 31 st March, 2011 would be subject<\/p>\n
to further orders in this writ petition. In an intra court appeal being LPA<\/p>\n
No.302\/2011 preferred by the petitioner, the Division Bench vide order<\/p>\n
dated 29th March, 2011 directed expeditious disposal of the writ petition.<\/p>\n
Counter affidavits have been filed by the respondent no.1 DOE as well as<\/p>\n
the respondent no.2 School. CM No.5348\/2011 has been filed by Shri A.K.<\/p>\n
Upadhyay, Vice-Principal of the respondent no.2 School and who upon<\/p>\n
retirement of the petitioner on 31st March, 2011 has been officiating also as<\/p>\n
the Principal of the school and claims to be eligible for appointment to the<\/p>\n
post of the Principal, for impleadment and intervention. Though no formal<\/p>\n
order has been made on the said application but counsel for Shri Upadhyay<\/p>\n
as well as the counsels for the parties have been heard.<\/p>\n
6.       The question for consideration is whether the Notification\/Order<\/p>\n
aforesaid relied on by the petitioner and naming “all retiring teachers in<\/p>\n
Government aided schools up to PGT level” would include the Principal<\/p>\n
also; while the petitioner contends that it would, the counsel for the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)1835\/2011                                              Page 5 of 15<\/span>
\n respondent No.1 DOE and the counsel for Shri Upadhyay contend<\/p>\n
otherwise. The counsel for the respondent no.2 School has chosen not to<\/p>\n
address and rightly so, being caught between two warring employees. In<\/p>\n
the counter affidavit of the respondent no.2 School also it is merely stated<\/p>\n
that the acceptance of the proposal of the petitioner for re-employment was<\/p>\n
withdrawn upon non-obtaining approval from the respondent no.1 DOE.<\/p>\n
7.       The counsel for the respondent no.1 DOE has invited attention to<\/p>\n
another Order No. F.30-3(28)\/Coord\/2006\/3398-3411 also dated 31st<\/p>\n
December, 2007 of the respondent no.1 DOE as under:-<\/p>\n
                   “The Hon’ble Lt. Governor, Government of National
\n                   Capital Territory of Delhi is pleased to allow the
\n                   appointment on contract basis of those Principals and
\n                   Vice Principals in schools under the Directorate of
\n                   Education, Government of Delhi who have attained the
\n                   age of 60 years and are retiring\/have retired during the
\n                   academic year 2007-08, for a period of one year and
\n                   extendable for another one year based on performance
\n                   and subject to fitness and vigilance clearance. The terms
\n                   and conditions of such appointment are being issued
\n                   separately.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
W.P.(C)1835\/2011                                                  Page 6 of 15<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 8.       It is the contention of the counsel for the respondent no.1 DOE that a<\/p>\n
separate Notification having been issued qua Principals, Vice-Principals,<\/p>\n
the Notification qua “teachers” would not extend to Principals\/Vice-<\/p>\n
Principals and it is for the said reason that approval to the proposal of<\/p>\n
re-employment of the petitioner was declined. It is further contended with<\/p>\n
reference to the Order dated 31st December, 2007 (supra) that the extension<\/p>\n
of retirement age to Principals\/Vice-Principals was limited to those retiring<\/p>\n
during the academic year 2007-08 only.\n<\/p>\n
\n
9.       The counsel for Shri Upadhyay besides reiterating the said argument<\/p>\n
also relies upon the reply dated 24th December, 2010 of the DOE obtained<\/p>\n
through the medium of Right to Information Act<\/a> to the effect that there is<\/p>\n
“no re-employment rule in Government aided schools of Delhi<\/p>\n
Government for the post of Principal and Vice Principal”.<\/p>\n
10.      The question of extension of retirement age of teachers, Principals &<\/p>\n
Vice Principals in the schools has been the subject matter of several dicta<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)1835\/2011                                                Page 7 of 15<\/span>
\n and a number of which were also cited during the course of hearing and<\/p>\n
which may be listed herein below:-\n<\/p>\n
\n
                   a) The Division Bench of this Court in Sheila Puri v. MCD<\/a><\/p>\n
                     1985 (9) DRJ 180        was      concerned       with         the<\/p>\n
                     Headmistress of a Municipal School who had become the<\/p>\n
                     School Inspectress and subsequently Senior Inspectress.<\/p>\n
                     The question for consideration was whether the Resolution<\/p>\n
                     extending the retirement age of teachers from 58 years to<\/p>\n
                     60 years would apply to her. The Division Bench posed the<\/p>\n
                     question as to whether she on becoming a Senior School<\/p>\n
                     Inspectress ceases to be a teacher; does she become an<\/p>\n
                     officer and not a teacher. It was held that if one is a teacher<\/p>\n
                     to start with, she remains a teacher even if promoted to a<\/p>\n
                     post which involves supervision of the school rather than<\/p>\n
                     teaching in the schools. It was further held that it would be<\/p>\n
                     a strange result that a Headmistress promoted to the post of<\/p>\n
                     School Inspectress should have a lower retirement age. It<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)1835\/2011                                                    Page 8 of 15<\/span>
\n                      was further held that two sets of persons belonging to the<\/p>\n
                     same class could not have different retiring age, whether<\/p>\n
                     they are promoted or not. It was further held that an<\/p>\n
                     Inspectress “must be a teacher” and does not cease to be a<\/p>\n
                     teacher by becoming an Inspectress and merely because the<\/p>\n
                     Resolution stated that the officers would retire at 58 years<\/p>\n
                     of age and teachers at 60 years of age would not exclude<\/p>\n
                     teachers performing administrative duties from being<\/p>\n
                     teachers;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
                   b) MCD preferred an appeal to the Apex Court against the<\/p>\n
                     aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench and the Supreme<\/p>\n
                     Court in the judgment reported in AIR 1989 SC 356 upheld<\/p>\n
                     the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                   c) A Single Judge of this Court in Sushma Nayar v.<\/p>\n
                     Managing Committee, Delhi Public School Mathura<\/p>\n
                     Road<\/a> 2009 VII AD (Delhi) 246 was concerned with<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)1835\/2011                                                  Page 9 of 15<\/span>
\n                      another Notification dated 29th January, 2007 of DOE<\/p>\n
                     providing for automatic re-employment up to the age of 62<\/p>\n
                     years of all retiring teachers up to PGT level. The question<\/p>\n
                     there also was whether the Notification qua teachers up to<\/p>\n
                     PGT level would apply to Vice Principal of the school also.<\/p>\n
                     It was again held that a Vice Principal remained a teacher<\/p>\n
                     and hence was entitled to the benefit of the Notification<\/p>\n
                     providing for re-employment up to the age of 62 years.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                   d) The said judgment of the Single Judge was also upheld by<\/p>\n
                     the Division Bench in Judgment dated 28th August, 2009 in<\/p>\n
                     LPA No.415\/2009. Dealing with arguments of Article 14<\/a> of<\/p>\n
                     the Constitution it was held that if a teacher qualified to be<\/p>\n
                     promoted as Vice Principal would be denied the benefit of<\/p>\n
                     automatic re-employment of two years whereas a teacher<\/p>\n
                     who has not been found fit to be promoted would get the<\/p>\n
                     benefit of re-employment, the same would violate Article<\/p>\n
                     14.<\/span><\/p>\n
W.P.(C)1835\/2011                                                   Page 10 of 15<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 11.      Though in my opinion the aforesaid judgments are sufficient to<\/p>\n
allow this writ petition but reference may also be made to some other<\/p>\n
judgments cited at the Bar.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                   i) Judgment dated 23rd November, 2010 of another Division
\n                     Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.5808\/2010 titled MCD
\n                     v. Giri Raj Sharma<\/a> holding that even a Headmistress was
\n                     entitled to the benefit of the Notification extending the age.<\/p>\n
                   ii) Maya Mathew v. State of Kerala<\/a> (2010) 4 SCC 498 on the<\/p>\n
                     general rules of interpretation;\n<\/p>\n
\n
                   iii) Shri Vidya Ram Misra v. Managing Committee, Shri<\/p>\n
                     Jain Narain College<\/a> (1972) 1 SCC 623 laying down that<\/p>\n
                     even a wrongful dismissal is effective termination of the<\/p>\n
                     contract of employment;\n<\/p>\n
\n
                   (iv) State Bank of India Vs. S.N. Goyal (2008) 8 SCC 92 on<\/p>\n
                     the aspect of a contract of employment being not<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)1835\/2011                                                   Page 11 of 15<\/span>
\n                      specifically enforceable except when it is statutory or<\/p>\n
                     governed by a statute.;\n<\/p>\n
\n
                   (v) Judgment   dated    6th   August,    2009     in      W.P.(C)<\/p>\n
                     No.7142\/2008 titled Ms. Maya Prasad Vs. Govt. of NCT<\/p>\n
                     of Delhi where referring to definition of “teacher” in<\/p>\n
                     Section 2(w) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 as<\/p>\n
                     including the Head of the School, it was held that the<\/p>\n
                     Principal of the School would also be entitled to the benefit<\/p>\n
                     of the Notification providing for re-employment of the<\/p>\n
                     teachers;\n<\/p>\n
\n
                   (vi) Neeta Aggarwal Vs. Dr. (Mrs) Raj Wadhwa 52 (1993)<\/p>\n
                     DLT 273 relating to re-employment of the Principal as the<\/p>\n
                     Principal only;\n<\/p>\n
\n
                   (vii) Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. Vs.<\/p>\n
                     Ashok Iron Works Pvt. Ltd. AIR 2009 SC 1905 laying<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)1835\/2011                                                   Page 12 of 15<\/span>
\n                       down that the use of the word “includes” enlarges the<\/p>\n
                      meaning of the expression defined unless the context<\/p>\n
                      shows otherwise;\n<\/p>\n
\n
                   (viii) Satheedevi Vs. Prasanna (2010) 5 SCC 622 also on the<\/p>\n
                      general principles of interpretation;\n<\/p>\n
\n
                   (ix) Usha Saini Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 142 (2007) DLT<\/p>\n
                      397 on the Recruitment Rules for the post of Principal i.e.<\/p>\n
                      by way of promotion failing which by direct recruitment;<\/p>\n
                   (x) Order dated 29th May, 2008 of the Delhi School Tribunal<\/p>\n
                      in Appeal No.22\/2008 titled Ms. Veena Aneja Vs. Lt.<\/p>\n
                      Governor, Delhi holding the Principals to be not covered<\/p>\n
                      by the Notification (supra) for re-employment of teachers;<\/p>\n
                   (xi) Order dated 29th May, 2008 of the Delhi School Tribunal<\/p>\n
                      in Appeal No.21\/2008 titled Mrs. Chhaya Sukhija Vs. Lt.<\/p>\n
                      Governor, Delhi to the same effect as aforesaid;
\nW.P.(C)1835\/2011                                                  Page 13 of 15<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 12.      The counsel for the respondent no.1 DOE has argued that the<\/p>\n
Notification providing for re-employment of the Principals for the year<\/p>\n
2007-08 was not carried forwarded because of non-approval of the<\/p>\n
Financial Department; that the judgments aforesaid are qua MCD Schools<\/p>\n
where even a TGT can be a Principal; that the position is different qua<\/p>\n
Schools of DOE; that the Principal is an administrative post above PGT;<\/p>\n
that DOE is the guardian of school education and no case for interference<\/p>\n
with its decision is made out; that no extensions have been granted to the<\/p>\n
Principals of the aided schools after the year 2008.<\/p>\n
13.      The counsel for the respondent Shri Upadhyay has also contended<\/p>\n
that the various cadres in a School comprise of TGT\/PGT\/Vice-<\/p>\n
Principal\/Principal and those in the higher cadre cannot take advantage of<\/p>\n
Notification initiated for the benefit of the lower cadre; that Maya Prasad<\/p>\n
(supra) was the case of a Headmaster who is different from the Principal.<\/p>\n
14.      In view of the dicta of the Division Bench of this Court noticed in<\/p>\n
paragraph 10 hereinabove, none of the aforesaid arguments of the counsels<\/p>\n
for the respondent no.1 DOE and\/or Shri Upadhyay cut any ice.<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)1835\/2011                                             Page 14 of 15<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 15.      The writ petition is therefore allowed. The order\/direction of the<\/p>\n
respondent no.1 DOE contained in its letter dated 10th March, 2011 is<\/p>\n
quashed\/set aside.      The respondents are directed to in terms of the<\/p>\n
Notification aforesaid, consider the case of the petitioner for re-<\/p>\n
employment as the Principal of the respondent no.2 School and upon being<\/p>\n
found fit, to re-employ the petitioner as the Principal of the respondent<\/p>\n
no.2 School.\n<\/p>\n
         The writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.<\/p>\n
                                             RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
\n                                                    (JUDGE)
\nMAY 27, 2011
\npp\/bs<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)1835\/2011                                                   Page 15 of 15<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Dr. Shiva Ditta Juneja vs Director Of Education And Anr on 27 May, 2011 Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 27th May, 2011. + W.P.(C) 1835\/2011 DR. SHIVA DITTA JUNEJA ….. Petitioner Through: Mr. Joginder Sukhija, Adv. Versus DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AND […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-268905","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDr. Shiva Ditta Juneja vs Director Of Education And Anr on 27 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-shiva-ditta-juneja-vs-director-of-education-and-anr-on-27-may-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr. Shiva Ditta Juneja vs Director Of Education And Anr on 27 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-shiva-ditta-juneja-vs-director-of-education-and-anr-on-27-may-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-05-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-21T14:46:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-shiva-ditta-juneja-vs-director-of-education-and-anr-on-27-may-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-shiva-ditta-juneja-vs-director-of-education-and-anr-on-27-may-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr. Shiva Ditta Juneja vs Director Of Education And Anr on 27 May, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-21T14:46:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-shiva-ditta-juneja-vs-director-of-education-and-anr-on-27-may-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2339,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-shiva-ditta-juneja-vs-director-of-education-and-anr-on-27-may-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-shiva-ditta-juneja-vs-director-of-education-and-anr-on-27-may-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-shiva-ditta-juneja-vs-director-of-education-and-anr-on-27-may-2011\",\"name\":\"Dr. Shiva Ditta Juneja vs Director Of Education And Anr on 27 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-21T14:46:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-shiva-ditta-juneja-vs-director-of-education-and-anr-on-27-may-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-shiva-ditta-juneja-vs-director-of-education-and-anr-on-27-may-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-shiva-ditta-juneja-vs-director-of-education-and-anr-on-27-may-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr. Shiva Ditta Juneja vs Director Of Education And Anr on 27 May, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dr. Shiva Ditta Juneja vs Director Of Education And Anr on 27 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-shiva-ditta-juneja-vs-director-of-education-and-anr-on-27-may-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr. Shiva Ditta Juneja vs Director Of Education And Anr on 27 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-shiva-ditta-juneja-vs-director-of-education-and-anr-on-27-may-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-05-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-21T14:46:40+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-shiva-ditta-juneja-vs-director-of-education-and-anr-on-27-may-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-shiva-ditta-juneja-vs-director-of-education-and-anr-on-27-may-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr. Shiva Ditta Juneja vs Director Of Education And Anr on 27 May, 2011","datePublished":"2011-05-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-21T14:46:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-shiva-ditta-juneja-vs-director-of-education-and-anr-on-27-may-2011"},"wordCount":2339,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-shiva-ditta-juneja-vs-director-of-education-and-anr-on-27-may-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-shiva-ditta-juneja-vs-director-of-education-and-anr-on-27-may-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-shiva-ditta-juneja-vs-director-of-education-and-anr-on-27-may-2011","name":"Dr. Shiva Ditta Juneja vs Director Of Education And Anr on 27 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-05-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-21T14:46:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-shiva-ditta-juneja-vs-director-of-education-and-anr-on-27-may-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-shiva-ditta-juneja-vs-director-of-education-and-anr-on-27-may-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-shiva-ditta-juneja-vs-director-of-education-and-anr-on-27-may-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr. Shiva Ditta Juneja vs Director Of Education And Anr on 27 May, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268905","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=268905"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268905\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=268905"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=268905"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=268905"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}