AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L. Narasimha Reddy, J
The applicant retired as Post Graduate Teacher (English) from the Directorate of Education of GNCT of Delhi. There existed a scheme of re-
employment of retired employees in the administration. The applicant was accordingly engaged through various orders clearly stipulating that it shall be
for a period of two years or till the regular appointments are made whichever is earlier. Through an order dated 10.09.2020, the Directorate of
Education has taken a policy decision to do away with the system of re-employment of Teachers as well as discontinuing the re-employed Teachers.
It was mentioned that the decision has to be taken on account of the fact that regular appointments are made. This OA is filed challenging the order
dated 10.09.2020.
The applicant contends that her appointment was for a specific period and in most of the cases no regular appointments were made against the post
now held by her.
We heard Mr. Udyan Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Esha Mazumdar, learned counsel for the respondents at the stage of
admission.
It is fairly well settled that a retired employee does not have any right muchless fundamental right to be re-employed. It is almost a matter of
necessity and convenience that the administration has taken a decision to re-employ the Vice Principals and Teachers for a period of two years. It
appears that in the recent past the substantial number of Teachers were appointed. Therefore, the administration has taken a policy decision to do
away with the re-employment of retired Teachers. It is also mentioned that such of the Teachers, who are re-employed, would be discontinued. Once
the applicant does not have any right to be appointed as re-employed Teacher, we find it difficult to interfere with the impugned order. At the same
time, the respondents can verify as to whether any fresh candidates have been appointed against the posts, which is hitherto held by the applicant. If
such appointments are made and there is workload, the feasibility of continuing the applicant on the same terms may be considered. On the other
hand, if the work does not exist or the new incumbents have joined , there would not be any necessity to continue the applicant.
With this observation, the OA is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.