The Delhi High Court dismissed the challenge against the discontinuation of the re-employment scheme for teachers.

The court observed that there is no vested right to claim re-employment.

The Principals, Vice Principals, and Teachers (petitioners) were re-engaged in the Directorate of Education after attaining the age of superannuation through a notification. However, this engagement was discontinued by the government's order as many vacant posts of teachers were filled through direct recruitment.

Since the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, stipulated that the Principal, Vice Principal and teacher could continue to hold an office till they attain the age of 60, the Court held that seeking re-employment was not a matter of right.

A Division Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed, “The re-employment scheme offered to the petitioners and such like personnel, was subject to entering into an agreement on judicial stamp paper and the terms of the re-employment were already spelt out, in such a situation whether to opt for re-employment or not was at the discretion of petitioners. The respondents clearly spelt out their terms and conditions of re-employment, which clearly stipulate that the appointments shall be linked to availability of vacancies.

Advocate Vidya Sagar represented the petitioners, while Standing Counsel Avnish Ahlawat appeared for the respondents.

The petitioners challenged this decision before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) arguing that the notifications allowing re-employment did not contain provisions for premature termination of services, making the order arbitrary. The government on the other hand argued that re-employment was subject to vacancies and not a matter of right for the retiring teachers.

The Court pointed out that the contents of the Notification clearly showed that even though the Directorate of Education directed the re-employment of all the retiring Teachers till they attain the age of 62 years, it was subject to certain conditions, one of which was “against a clear vacancy.

The Court stressed the content of the notification which stipulated that “the re-employment will not be automatic, but subject to vigilance clearance, fitness, performance, work & conduct and on a year to year basis based on annual contract and linked with vacancies.

The Court remarked that “the notification clearly stated that the terms and conditions of re-employment were linked to the availability of vacancies.

Consequently, the Court held that “the services of re-employed were discontinued in view of the fact that appointments to the posts of Principals, Vice Principals and Teachers through direct recruitment were already been done and as such, there was no further requirement of appointments through re-employment.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.

Cause Title: Society For Teachers’ Cause & Ors. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:2598-DB)


Petitioners: Advocates Vidya Sagar and Amarlok

Respondents: Standing Counsel Avnish Ahlawat; Advocates Tania Ahlawat, Nitesh Kumar Singh, Palak Rohmetra, Laavanya Kaushik and Aliza Alam

Click here to read/download the Judgment