Harvinder Kaur (Smt.) vs Lt. Governor, Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi ...
1999 Latest Caselaw 501 Del

ORDER

K. Ramamoorthy, J.

1. The petitioner, who is working as TGT in SS Khalsa Sr. Secondary School (Chakwal), Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi, has sought the relief of quashing the promotion of the fourth respondent as PGT w.e.f. 12.2.1997 as per the decision of the Management Committee in its meeting held on 12.2.1997.

2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition can be stated briefly in the following terms: In September, 1978, the petitioner was appointed as TGT in the third respondent school. One Mr. Bhupinder Singh, who was working as PGT (History) in the school, retired on the 30th of April, 1996 on his attaining the age of 60 years. Therefore, the post PGT (History) fell vacant on the 30th of April, 1996. On the retirement of Mr. Bhupinder Singh, the Department of Education, i.e., the second respondent, gave clearance to the Management of the School to hold DPC to fill up the post of PGT (History). The DPC of the School met on the 1st of July, 1996 and again on the 15th of July, 1996, and on both the occasions, the case of the petitioner was not considered.

3. On the 26th of August, 1996, the petitioner made a representation to the School. The same reads as under:-

"It is submitted that I joined the school in 1978 as TGT History. By that time I had already done M.A. (History Hons.) in IInd Division.

2. That by the virtue of any qualification on the subject of History, I was given the subject of Social Studies of IXth Classes for the last eighteen years.

      3.   That  my  efforts  (on the  subject)  to  imposed  education  brought  good  results  in the Board Examination  that  too  with      distinctions. 
 

      4.   That  I have been given the History classes for XI  and  XII ever since the History P.G.T. retired on 30th April, 1996.  Since      I was the only eligible candidate for this subject. 
 

     I, therefore, submit my case for promotion to PGT. It may  kindly be considered favourably and authorities concerned are  requested      to do the needful and oblige." 
 

      There was no reply from the School. 
 

 4.   On the 26th of February, 1997, the petitioner again made a representation in the following terms:- 
  

  "It  is  to inform your goodself that I joined  the  S.S.  Khalsa      Senior Secondary School (Chakwal) Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar,  New   Delhi  in  September, 1978 as TGT (History). At the time  of  appointment my qualification was M.A. (History Hons.). 
 

      I have already put my 18 years of services as TGT (History) since my joining upto the satisfaction of my superiors and brought good  esults in the Board Examinations. 
 

      On retirement of PGT (History) teacher, the post remained  vacant      after  30th April, 1996 and I being the only  candidate  eligible      for the PGT (History) post, was given XIth & XIIth classes  also. 
     Simultaneously  the  clearance for the said post was got  by  the      school authorities by 3rd May, 1996. 
 

     As  such, I was the only eligible teacher for the  PGT  (History)      post,  put till 10th August, 1996, my promotion was not  cleared,      while DPC was held on 15th July, 1996. 
  

     Thereafter,  another Science teacher (TGT) got cleared  his  M.A. History exams by 10th August, 1996 and post became disputed. 
  

     If  the PGT (History) post had been clearned on the  DPC  meeting      held  on  15th  July, 1996, I being the only  candidate  the  PGT      (History) post would have been given to me, but due to delay  the      dispute arose and I become the sufferer. 
 

      Moreover,  I  am still the only eligible candidate for  the  post  since the same is vacant w.e.f. 1st May, 1996 and as on that date      I was only eligible candidate and clearance of PGT (History) post   was also got on 3rd May, 1996. 
  

     Now,  in  the DPC held on 12.2.97, the other teacher  of  science      graduate got cleared his M.A. (History) exams in August, 1996  iS      also being considered for the said PGT (History) post. As such my  due right for the post is jeopardised. 
  

     I,  therefore,  request you to please look into  the  matter  and      intervene for the due right of PGT (History) post in my favour as      I became eligible for the post w.e.f. 1st May, 1996." 
 

      There was also no reply from the School.  
 

5.   On  the 12th of February, 1997, the DPC of the School had met and  the minutes of the DPC would read as under:- 
     

  "The DPC held a meeting on 12.2.1997 at 10.00 A.M. in the  School      premises under the Chairmanship of Shri N.S. Sistani, Manager, to      consider the case of promotion to S. Santokh Singh, TGT and  Mrs.      Harvinder Kaur TGT of this School. 
 

     The members of the DPC were as under:- 
      1. Dr. R.K. Sharma :       A.D.E. (T.B.B.)
     2. Mrs. Rita Sharma:       Edu. Officer, Zone S-25.
     3. Mrs. S. Mehta     :       D.E.O. Zone S-24, (Subject Expert)
     4. Sh. N.S. Sistani   :       Manager
     5. S. Amrit Singh    :       Offtg. Principal.
 

It was reported by the Chairman of DPC that the following candidates namely S. Santokh Singh and Mrs. Harvinder Kaur are eligi ble as per their qualifications for the promotion to the post of PGT (History). For screening purpose the DPC unanimously decided to promote the candidate on the basis of merit. The criteria to finalise the merit as adopted by Directorate of Education for selection of teachers be adopted and the candidate who obtains higher marks as per the criteria of Education Department be considered for promotion for this post.

This procedure of selection was adopted by the DPC under the provision of Rule 96(6) of DSER, 1973.

In both the cases the marks obtained by S. Santokh Singh and Mrs. Harvinder Kaur were found 44 marks each. The results of both teachers for the last five years were found satisfactory. Confidential Reports review and work and conduct were also found to be very good. S. Santokh Singh is found to be senior than Mrs. Harvinder Kaur.

Keeping in view all the above merits and the seniority the DPC unanimously decided to recommend the name of S. Santokh Singh for the promotion of PGT (History) against the vacant post in this School with immediate effect."

6. On the 17th of March, 1997, the petitioner again made a representation to the Management. On the 31st of March, 1997, the Management sent the following reply:-

"With reference the representation dated 17.3.97 regarding promo tion for the post of PGT (History), in this regard Mrs. Harvinder Kaur, TGT is informed as under:-

1. In the first instance her attention is invited to her representation dated 26.2.1997 addressed to the Director of Education. In this connection she is informed that she has violated the Code of Conduct by making direct representation to the higher authori ties ignoring proper channel. As such she is liable for disciplinary action under the rule.

2. As far as the representation dated 17.3.1997 is concerned Mrs. Harvinder Kaur is informed that the Management took timely action to fill the post of PGT (History) by promotion but due to various reasons which were beyond the control of Management, the said post could not be filled according to the wishes of the Management. The reasons for delay i.e. pre-occupation of the Departmental nominees and re-validation of the earlier clearance to fill the post of PGT (History). In spite of the fact the Management made sincere efforts to fill the post of PGT (History) as far as possible. She is also intimated that there is no post of TGT (History) as stated by her in her representation. However, it is pointed out that the school authority despatched several letters to constitute the DPC of the PGT (History). It was impossible to promote her on the dates stated by her i.e. 1.7.96 and 15.7.96 because we received list of Government nominees on 30.12.1996 vide letter No. F.EO/Z-S-26/96/1743 and clearance of this post was given by the Department on 2.2.1997 vide letter No. F.EO/Z-S-25/96/2133. Under these circumstances the Management was helpless to promote her previously.

3. Mrs. Harvinder Kaur TGT in also aware that criteria of promotion to the next higher post is seniority-cum-fitness. On the day of DPC Sh. Santokh Singh, TGT was fulfillling all the conditions for the promotion and as such the members of the DPC including Government nominees unanimously decided to promote him as PGT (History) on the basis of seniority.

4. According to contents narrated by her are without any substances and all are wholly misplaced."

7. On the 12th of April, 1997, the following order was passed by the Management:-

"The Management Committee of the School in its meeting held on 12.2.97 at 11.00 a.m. decided unanimously to promote S. Santokh Singh (TGT) as Lecturer (History) as per the decision of DPC in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-60-2000-EB-60-2360-EB-60-2600-75-2750EB-2900 w.e.f. 12.1.97 (FN)."

8. On the 26th of March, 1997, the petitioner presented the writ petition in this Court. On the 28th of April, 1997, an additional affidavit had been filed by the petitioner. The respondents had been served but they did not enter appearance.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.K. Bisaria, submitted that the petitioner, who is a History Teacher having studied History in B.A. (Hons) and M.A., was the only TGT available for being considered for promotion to the post of PGT (History) on the date when Mr. Bhupinder Singh retired. He submitted that deliberately, the DPC, held on 1.7.96 and 15.7.96, did not consider the case of the petitioner, and the Management was postponing the filling up of the vacancy for the fourth respondent, who has been a Science Teacher, to acquire qualification in History. The fourth respondent passed his M.A. (History) from Punjab University in August, 1996. Thereafter, in the DPC, held on 12.2.1997, and on the basis that the fourth respondent is senior to the petitioner, the fourth respondent had been promoted.

10. The learned counsel, Mr. S.K. Bisaria, submitted that the relevant date for consideration for promotion for the post of PGT (History) was 30.4.1996 or 3.5.1996 when clearance was given by the Director of Education and on those dates the fourth respondent was not qualified to be considered for promotion for the post of PGT (History). Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the promotion of the fourth respondent as PGT (History) on 12.4.1997 w.e.f. 12.1.1997 is not sustainable in law. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.K. Bisaria, submitted that what is stated in the letter dated 31.3.1997 by the Management that the clearance of the post was given only on 3.2.1997 is not correct. The learned counsel submitted that when the third respondent is expected to act in accordance with law, it had acted illegally in appointing the fourth respondent as PGT (History). He further submitted that the relevant date for promotion for the post of PGT (History), which is 30.4.1996, and that has completely been ignored by the Management.

11. The Management had not referred, in its letter dated 31.3.1997 about the date when the vacancy arose and why in the DPC held on 1.7.1996 and 15.7.1996, the case of the petitioner was not considered and the fact that the clearance was given by the Director of Education on the 3rd of May, 1996, which is mentioned by the petitioner in his representation, has also not been considered. In the light of these facts, the order of the Management appointing the fourth respondent as PGT (History) cannot be sustained.

12. The question arises, whether the petitioner could be declared to have been promoted as PGT (History) w.e.f. 12.1.1997. The fact that the Director of Education had given clearance on the 3rd of May, 1996, and when in the DPC, held on 1.7.96 and 15.7.96, why the case of the petitioner was not considered had not been explained by the Management, the petitioner is entitled to the declaration. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

13. The order dated 12.4.1997 is quashed and the petitioner is declared to have been appointed as PGT (History) w.e.f. 12.1.1997. Respondents 2 & 3 shall pass appropriate orders granting promotion to the petitioner as PGT (History) w.e.f. 12.1.1997 and the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits.

14. There shall be no order as to costs.