Blog

Title: Government of NCT of Delhi versus Dilawar Singh & Ors.

+ W.P.(C) 6423/2021, CM APPL. 20183/2021

Decided on- 22 December 2023

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA

Facts of the case:

The respondents, who were applicants in OA 1847/2014 were appointed as PETs on February 4, 1988 and the applicants in OA 1628/2015 were appointed between 1987 and 1989. Promotion from the post of PET is to the post of Post Gradate Teacher (‘PGT’, for short), which has since been re-designated Lecturer (PE). Their grievance before the Tribunal was that the petitioners herein are maintaining separate seniority lists for male PETs and female PETs, and that promotions are being affected on that basis. The Tribunal while accepting the contentions of the applicants therein held that separate seniority lists for male and female teachers cannot be maintained and promotion on the basis of such separate lists is not permissible in law. It is against the said decision of the Tribunal that the petitioners have filed the instant petitions.

Laws Involved:

Article 14 in The Constitution of India

14. Equality before law- The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.

Issue framed by the court:

whether the respondents who were appointed as PETs, subsequently re-designated as Lecturer (PET) should have a combined seniority list without any distinction as to male and female?

Courts Judgements and Analysis:

The Hon’ble HC listened to both the parties, The petitioners argue that the practice of maintaining separate seniority lists for male and female Physical Education Teachers (PETs) is an old one, rooted in the existence of separate schools for boys and girls and the Tribunal allowed the Original Applications (OAs) filed by the respondents, stating that separate seniority lists for males and females which is impermissible in law.

During the proceedings, a committee was formed to recommend a common seniority list for PETs, irrespective of gender, with recommendations noted by the court. Two combined seniority lists were prepared by the petitioners as of January 1, 2014, and January 1, 2022.

Mrs. Ahlawat, counsel for petitioner argued that implementing the seniority list as of January 1, 2014, may lead to the reversion of already empanelled teachers. On the other hand, Mr. Behera, counsel for respondent asserts that the Tribunal rightly directed the preparation of a combined seniority list based on appointment dates, and the concerns raised are baseless.

The Hon’ble HC considered the narrow issue of whether to implement the seniority list frozen as of January 1, 2014, or January 1, 2022. Given the delay in the respondents receiving orders in their favor and the potential administrative difficulties, the court decided to implement the seniority list frozen as of January 1, 2022. The court emphasized that this decision aims to prevent further litigation, and it acknowledges that the Tribunal’s directions were prospective.

The court’s rationale for directing the implementation of the seniority list as of January 1, 2022, lies in the consideration of the time elapsed, administrative difficulties, and the prospective nature of the Tribunal’s directions. By opting for the later date, the court aims to obviate potential litigation and maintain consistency with the Tribunal’s prospective approach, aligning with principles of fairness and practicality.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Aditi

click here to view the judgment