Case No. 1284/1111/2019/11/1813-15 Dated:28-09-21
In the matter of:
Ms. Rachna,
1280, Pushp Vihar, Sector-03,
New Delhi – 110017. ................ Complainant
Versus
The Principal,
Mt. Columbus School,
C-Block, Dakshinpuri, Near Madangir Market,
New Delhi-110062. ..............…Respondent No.1
The Director,
Directorate of Education,
GNCT of Delhi,
Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054. ..............…Respondent No.2
ORDER
The above named complainant, Ms. Rachna, a person with 70% locomotor disability vide her complaint dated 07.11.2019 alleged that she was harassed by the Principal, Mount Columbus School, where she was an employee as a Music Teacher on contract basis.
2. The matter was taken up with the respondent No. 1 vide show cause notice dated 15.11.2019. The brief facts of the case were mentioned in the Interim Order dated 12.08.2021.
3. Vide ROP dated 24.12.2019, this court observed that relieving the complainant before completion of her tenure of six months without issuing any warning letter or notice is arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. Respondent No. 1 was directed to maintain status quo ante and let the complainant work till she completes six months. Director of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi was impleaded as Respondent No. 2 and was directed to constitute a committee to enquire into the matter and submit the report bringing out the facts.
4. Respondent No. 2 submitted the inquiry report dated 26.02.2021, exhaustively bringing out the facts in a chronological manner. Vide ROP dated 26.03.2021, the school authorities were directed to submit clarifications on Point No. 4 , 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the inquiry report submitted by the Directorate of Education.
5. After due deliberations during the course of several hearings on the matter, following were recommended vide ROP dated 09.04.2021:-
(i) The school authorities need to clarify the points raised by Dte. of Education and this Court by 16.04.2021.
(ii) The Dte. of Education to go through the sanctioned establishment of posts of teachers and staff of the school and ascertain if there is provision of a permanent post of music teacher.
(iii) Post receipt of the response from the School/Respondent No. 1, Dte. of Education was to submit final recommendations to this Court as per existing guidelines/rules.
6. Vide submission dated 02.08.2021, the representative of Respondent No. 2 reiterated that the complainant was appointed on 06.07.2019 on Temporary basis for a period of 6 months and was not on regular or permanent basis. There was no discrimination with the complainant. There had never been any violation on the part of the Respondent School but always acted in good faith in accordance with the rules.
7. The court reserved the final recommendations in the subject case till receipt of response from Directorate of Education, GNCTD.
8. Directorate of Education, GNCTD vide their e-mail dated 22.09.2021 submitted that recruitment of employees in private unaided recognised schools, other than minority school is governed by Rule 96 to Rule 106 of DSEAR and among the aforesaid rules there is no provision for appointing teachers on adhoc basis. Further, the recruitment to the post of the teachers in the private unaided recognised schools shall be according to such posts created/formulated by the DOE and whose RRs have been duly enacted and published in the Gazette. It is also implicit in Rule 101 of the DSEAR, 1973 that recruitment to part time teachers other than female teachers in the primary schools shall not be lawful.
9. It was further added by DOE that the post of Music Teacher is a regular post and teachers are appointed on regular basis in schools under DOE, GNCT of Delhi and all private aided/unaided recognised schools whereas it is taught as one of the subject. However, it is not a compulsory subject. It is relevant to mention that in the submission of school against the complainant was that she was appointed on temporary basis for a period of 6 months only and that she was aware of the same and she was employed for a short term period and her employment is not regular or permanent, does not augur well as per DSEAR, 1973.
10. Further, the services of an employee of private unaided school can be terminated only with the approval of Director (Education) as per Section 8(2) of DSEAR, 1973 read with Rule 120(2) of DSEAR, 1973 for violation of the Code of Conduct by the teacher as specified in Rule 123 of DSEAR, 1973 and after following the due procedure as envisaged in Rule 117 to 120 of DSEAR, 1973 and the protection of Section 8(2) of DSEAR, 1973 is applicable for those employees whose recruitment is done in accordance with the provisions of DSEAR, 1973 on the post for which they are found eligible as per the qualification mentioned in the notified RRs.
11. In the present case, the school and the complainant knew irregularities in appointment. The DOE has no role to play in such type of matters which accelerates the illegalities. However, the said school management failed to adhere to the provisions of the DSEAR, 1973 in appointment and termination of the complainant for which a Show Cause Notice had already been issued to the school authorities.
12. In view of the facts of the case, submissions of the complainant & respondents, existing rules & regulations on the subject and the observations given in the Interim Order, the following is recommended:-
(i) It is observed that the rules and regulations were not followed by the school authorities as per the DSEAR, 1973 regarding appointment of the complainant who is a Person with Disabilities, as Music Teacher. Moreover, procedure was also not followed for discontinuing the appointment of the complainant which is arbitrary and discriminatory, specially the complainant being a PwD. As per RPwD Act, 2016, the complainant is to be allowed to continue to work as Music Teacher in the Mt. Columbus School.
(ii) DOE to take appropriate action with reference to Show Cause Notice issued to the School Authorities as per DSEAR, 1973.
13. The case is disposed of accordingly.
14. An Action Taken Report be submitted to this Court within 3 months from the date of receipt of the order as required under Section 81 of the RPwD Act, 2016.
15. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 28th day of September, 2021.
