W.P. 1775-77/2005 Page 1 of 4 17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of judgment: 08.05.2009 + W.P.(C) 1775-77/2005, C.M. Nos. 1402/2005, 3098/2005 and 22/2006 SUMAN KHATTAR & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through : Mr. Ashok Agarwal and Mr. Mannu Mohan, Advocates. versus NAVYUG EDUCATION SOCIETY & ANR ..... Respondents Through : Mr. B.B. Gupta, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers Yes may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be Yes reported in the Digest? HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT, (OPEN COURT) 1. The writ petitioners claim to be aggrieved by the increase of hours of work from 1200. This change is in respect of primary teachers of Navyug Education Society and was brought about by a circular. 2. The writ petitioners are teachers in the Navyug schools. They are aggrieved by a circular which reads as follows: “NAVYUG SCHOOL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY HEAD OFFICE, N.P. PRIMARY SCHOOL, NO.01 HANUMAN ROAD : NEW DELHI NSES/Misc./Working Hour-II/Part file/40/2005/148 Dated: 18.03.2005 W.P. 1775-77/2005 Page 2 of 4 OFFICE ORDER With the prior approval of the Chairperson the timing of the Navyug Schools on the examination days and the days given for preparation to the students between the papers shall be from 8.00 A.M. to 12.00 Noon and on the last working day of the month the school timing shall be from 8.00 A.M. to 1.00 P.M. This shall come into force with immediate effect. Sd/- (S.R. SPOLIA) DEPUTY DIRECTOR” 3. The writ petitioners contend that under Section 31 of the Delhi School Education Rules, a limit on hours of work has been prescribed. The said rule is in the following terms: “31. School hours-(1) The director shall, by order, specify the time at which all schools, other than recognized private schools, shall commence and conclude the daily school hours and different timings may be specified for different seasons of the year or for schools running in one shift or multiple shifts. Provided that the total school hours in a year for the middle and higher secondary stage of education shall not, ordinarily, be less than 1000 hrs. Provided further that in addition to 1000 school hours, a teacher may be required to devote not more than 200 hours in a year for remedial or other teaching. 2) The unaided recognized schools may specify their own timings but, in any case, the total school hour in a year shall not be less than 1000 hours. Provided that in addition to 1000 school hours, a teacher may be required to devote not more than 200 hours in a year for remedial or other teaching.” 4. In addition to above, the petitioners rely upon statements made in the course of previous writ proceedings, i.e. W.P. 1152/2005 whereby it was recorded as follows: “So far as the question of restricting the working hours to 1200 hours per year is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondents (NDMC) submits that the same is being adhered to and the respondents will continue to adhere to this. W.P. 1775-77/2005 Page 3 of 4 About inclusion of two representatives of the teachers is the Managing Committee, the respondents are directed to comply with the same. The Managing Committee of the school should have two elected representatives of the teachers as per the provisions of Rule 59 of the Delhi School Education Rules 1973.” 5. The respondents’ contention is that increase of hours is in conformity with Rule 31 read with Rule 114 of the Act and Rules. Rule 114 provides inter alia that every teacher should devote in an year, not less than 1200 hours to the teaching of students of which not more than 200 hours can be devoted to coaching in school premises of weak students before or after school hours. 6. The proviso to rule, which is relied specifically states as follows: “XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX Provided that if any teacher is required to devote more than 1200 hours to the teaching of students, extra remuneration shall be paid to him at such rate as may be determined by the managing committee, for every hour in excess of 1200 hours devoted by him to the teaching of students. (2) In the case of an aided school, the extra remuneration referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be subject to the previous approval of the Director and shall qualify for aid at the rate of 95 per cent of such extra remuneration, and in the case of an unaided school, such extra remuneration may be recovered from the students at such proportionate rates as may be determined by the managing committee.” XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX 7. It is submitted that the cap indicated in Rule 31 is not a maximum but a minimum limit; the respondents further contend that extra 200 hours may be required for the remedial and other teaching. According to the respondents, the objective of establishing Navyug schools is different from other schools as they are primarily meant for gifted children belonging to the economically weaker sections and the respondents are paid scales of pay higher than what is provided for under the Act and Rules. 8. This Court has considered the submissions of parties. Although initially, Rule 31 indicates 1000 hours, it is phrased as a minimum standard; thus every teacher is to put in W.P. 1775-77/2005 Page 4 of 4 1000 hours and also upto 200 hours in an year for remedial and other teaching. Rule 114 relieves the cap to a certain extent by saying that every teacher shall devote not less than 1200 hours to teaching of students and that if any teacher is required to devote more than 1200 hours, he would be paid extra remuneration. 9. It is significant that the rule has not been challenged in these proceedings. That being the position, the impugned circular which fits in with the Scheme of the Rules cannot be held to be arbitrary or unreasonable. It is meant to further the objectives of education even while balancing the teaching staff’s aspirations; they are entitled to claim extra remuneration in such circumstances. 10. The writ petition is for the above reasons not maintainable; it is accordingly dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE) MAY 08, 2009