Smt. Shakuntla Bhatla vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 767 Del

JUDGMENT

Vijender Jain, J.

1. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, Director of Education has given hearing to the petitioner and disposed of the representation of the petitioner. The stand of respondent no. 5, i.e. school is that the petitioner retired as principal. Counsel for respondent no. 5 has contended that the liability of respondent no. 5 is 5% and 95% is of the Directorate of Education. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court respondents 3 & 4 had filed additional affidavit, inter alia, stating that the petitioner is not entitled to pension which is to the paid to the principal as the petitioner drew the salary of the Principal in terms of interim order passed by this Court. Along with the additional affidavit which has been filed by respondents 3 & 4, minutes of the DPC, which was held on 14th March, 1991 which are crucial for determination of the controversy, has also been filed by respondents 3 & 4. The same are to the following effect:

"A meeting of the D.P.C. was held on Thursday the 14th March, 1991 at 5 P.M. in the school premises for filling up the post of the Principal of Navashakti Girls Sr. Sec. School. The following were Present:-

1. Shri Prabhat Raman, Chairman.

2. Shri K.D. Tripathi, Jt. Director (Admn)

3. Shri R.S.S. Sisodia, Jt. Director (Planning)

4. Shri D.R. Unnithan, D.D.E. (Central)

The following employees in order of seniority were considered :-

1. Mrs. S. Bhatla, Vice Prinicipal

2. Mrs. K. Bhargava PGT (Selection Grade)

3. Miss U Kakkar PGT

4. Mrs. P. Kharbanda PGT

5. Mrs. K. Khosla PGT

Before deciding anything the Chairman of the school sitting Sri Prabhat Raman was of the opinion the the post of the Principal is a selection post and as such the best candidate from amongst the five selected on the basis of merit which shall prevail over seniority while all the three officers of the department were of the view that this is a promotional post and thus the senior most persons i.e. Mrs. S. Bhatla, who is working as Vice Principal may be promoted as Principal because till she went to the court, there is no adverse entry in the A.C. Rs. and afterwards whatever adverse entries are in the A.C.Rs. have not been communicated. The Chairman wishes to point the adverse entries do, in fact, exist in the A.C.Rs. for the period 1987-88 which are much before Mrs. Bhatla went to the Court. The officer of the Directorate observed that such remarks were not communicated to her in the time. The Chairman wishes to record that all adverse entries in the A.C.Rs. which in fact, have even been categorized as average for the years 1987-88 and 1988-89and unsatisfactory for the year 1989-90 were communicated to their in sufficient detail and in writing throw memos to which her replies are on record and have also been found unsatisfactory. The officers of the Directorate do not agree to this.

In the opinion of the Chairman on the basis of merit Mrs. K. Bhargava PGT (Selection Grade), who is next senior most should be selected for the post of the Principal. The officers of the Directorate do not agree for the reasons given above.,

Sd/- Sd/-

(Prabhat Raman) (K.D. Tripathi)

Chairman, 14.3.91 JT. Director (Admn)

Sd/- Sd/-

(R.S.S. Sisodia) Jt. Director (Planning)

Sd/-

(D.R. Unnithan)

D.D.E. (Central) 14.3.91"

2. Out of the four members of the DPC, three were from Directorate of Education, Joint Director (Admn), Joint Director (Planning) and Deputy Director of Education. All the three were of the opinion that the post of the principal was promotional post and petitioner may be promoted as principal. In the minutes it was also pointed out that no adverse entry in the ACR till the petitioner went to the Court was recorded by respondent no.5 nor the said adverse entry was communicated to the petitioner. That means when petitioner approached the Court for vindication of her right, the school management started giving adverse entries to the petitioner and said adverse entries were not communicated to the petitioner. It is in this background all the three representatives of Director of Education in the said DPC did not agree with Prabhat Raman who was the Chairman of the DPC with regard to denying promotion to the petitioner. They did not agree that adverse entries in the ACRs of the petitioner could be considered as same were not communicated to the petitioner. It is shocking to observe that a gentleman was allowed to carry his whims and fancies and Directorate of Education did not take any action under the Act to redress the legitimate grievance of the petitioner. They miserably failed to perform their obligation under the Delhi Education Act. If the grievance of the petitioner would have been settled by the Directorate of Education, the petitioner would not have to approach this court as well as Supreme Court time and again. Filing of this additional affidavit by the Director of Education does not inspire any credence or credibility. Additional affidavit does not serve the cause of justice.

3. Therefore, I hold that by-passing the petitioner on the basis of DPC held in 1991 was illegal. Therefore, the petitioner succeeds in the writ petition. Petitioner under court orders performed duties as Principal. Therefore, I direct respondents to pay pension to the petitioner within eight weeks treating the petitioner as Principal from which post she retired in 1998.

4. With these observations, petition stands disposed of. Pending applications also stand disposed of.