Delhi High Court
Kusum Lata vs N.C.T. Of Delhi & Others on 7 February, 2011
Author: Rekha Sharma
UNREPORTABLE
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P. (C) No.8804/2008
Date of Decision: February 07, 2011
KUSUM LATA ......Petitioner
through Mr. Krishanu Adhikary, Advocate
versus
N.C.T. OF DELHI & OTHERS .....Respondents
through Ms. Anju Bhattacharya, Advocate with
Mr. Elgin Matt John, Advocate for respondents
No.1 & 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA
1. Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment? No
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the „Digest‟? No
REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL)
A "Departmental Promotion Committee" (hereinafter referred to
as the „DPC') for promotion to the post of Vice-Principal in Bansi Dhar
Memorial Girls Senior Secondary School was constituted, which
comprised of five members. The DPC held its meeting on
June 01, 2007 and examined the service records of eligible candidates
who fell in the zone of consideration including that of the petitioner
and respondent No.3. It was respondent No.3 who was selected to the
post.
WP(C) No.8804/2008 Page 1
The petitioner has challenged the selection of respondent No.3
on two grounds. Firstly, that the DPC was not properly constituted,
and secondly, that her service record was better than that of
respondent No.3.
The learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2 has produced the
original record before me and has also relied upon a circular dated
March 10, 2005 which provides that for selection of a teacher other
than a Head of school, the DPC shall comprise of the Chairman of the
Managing Committee or a member of the Managing Committee
nominated by the Chairman, the Head of school, an educationist to be
nominated by the Director-Education Officer of the Zone concerned
and an expert on the subject in relation to which the teacher is
proposed to be appointed - to be nominated by the DDE (Act)/ADE
(Act). A perusal of the minutes of meeting of DPC goes to show that
the DPC comprised of all such members as are referred to in the said
circular. The learned counsel for the petitioner has been apprised of
this fact and upon learning of the same, he does not have any
grievance in so far as the constitution of the DPC is concerned.
As regards the other submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the record of the petitioner was better than that of
respondent No.3, here again the learned counsel for respondents No.1
& 2 has produced the relevant record which goes to show that there
was no significant difference between the ACRs of five preceding years
of the petitioner as well as of respondent No.3. From the year 2001-02
till the year 2005-06, both the petitioner and respondent No.3 had
identical grading of "Very Good" or "Good" except that in the year
WP(C) No.8804/2008 Page 2
2002-03, the petitioner was adjudged as "Very Good", whereas
respondent No.3 was adjudged as "Good". Thereafter, for subsequent
years, both of them were adjudged as "Good". It seems that since
there was no significant difference between the ACRs of the petitioner
and of respondent No.3 and as respondent No.3 was senior to the
petitioner, the DPC leaned in favour of respondent No.3 and
accordingly selected her. If the DPC in its collective wisdom and after
considering the ACRs of preceding five years and other service record,
felt that respondent No.3 was more suitable to hold the post, its
decision deserves to be respected. There is no merit in the writ-
petition. The same is dismissed.
REKHA SHARMA, J.
FEBRUARY 07, 2011
ka
WP(C) No.8804/2008 Page 3
