G.G. Bhowmick vs Guru Harkrishan Public School & ...
2012 Latest Caselaw 4574 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                   LPA 553/2002

%                                           Judgment Delivered on: 1.8.2012


G.G. BHOWMICK                                               . . . APPELANT
                          Through :            In person.

                                   VERSUS

GURU HARKRISHAN PUBLIC SCHOOL & ORS.
                                                      ....RESPONDENTS

Through: Mr. Jasmeet Singh, Advocate with Ms. Vatsala Singh, Advocates.

CORAM :-

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

A.K. SIKRI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE: (ORAL)

CM APPL. 13103/2012 (restoration of appeal)

For the reasons stated in the application, prayer is allowed and LPA is

restored to its original number.

CM stands disposed of.

LPA 553/2002

1. We have heard appellant Mr. Bhowmick who appears in person and

Mr. Jasmeet Singh, learned counsel for the School.

2. This case relates to the promotion of the appellant to the post of PGT.

Admittedly, he was not considered for promotion though his juniors were

promoted to the said post. The appellant had given various representations

seeking promotion to this post and ultimately filed W.P.(C) 7113/99. In the

counter affidavit filed to this petition, the respondent school had taken the

stand that the appellant was denied promotion on the basis of his ACRs.

However, thereafter additional affidavit was filed in the writ petition wherein

the aforesaid stand was changed and instead the respondent school came out

with the plea that vacancy of PGT was to be advertised which was done on

18.3.1999 but the appellant failed to respond to the same and because of this

reason, he could not be considered for promotion. As per the Recruitment

Rules, which were admittedly followed by the respondent school at the

relevant time, 25% of the vacancy of PGT are to be filled up by direct

recruitment and 75% by promotion. Once, it is said that the posts were

advertised and the appellant failed to respond to the same, the respondents

were resorting to the direct recruitment method. However, the appellant had

sought appointment to the post of PGT under promotion quota and therefore

there was no question for the appellant to apply for the same. Since it is not

the case of the respondent now that the appellant was denied promotion on the

basis of ACR and the case set up is that appellant could not be considered for

promotion as he had not applied for the same. This reason for not promoting

the appellant appears to be contrary to the Rules. We may record that these

facts were noted by the Division Bench in the present appeal in order dated

4.12.2003 and 17.11.2004. Thereafter when the matter was taken up on

6.12.2004, learned counsel for the respondent had made a statement that

respondents were willing to grant PGT scale to the appellant from January

1995 till 31st March, 2004 and this was acceptable to the appellant as well.

However, the matter thereafter could not be settled as joint application in

terms of the settlement was not filed for one reasons or the other.

3. We are not going into these reasons. Even today, Mr. Jasmeet Singh,

learned counsel for the respondent school states that respondent would be

willing to grant PGT scale from January, 1995 to 31st March, 2004. In fact,

that is the entitlement of the appellant even under the law.

4. We, therefore, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and allow

this appeal directing the respondent to grant the PGT scale to the appellant

from January, 1995, fix his pay on that basis, calculate the arrears of pay and

all other terminal benefits on that basis and pay the same to the appellant

5. Needful be done within three weeks.

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

(RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW) JUDGE AUGUST 1, 2012 skb