Delhi High Court
Minakshi Singh vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. on 19 December, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: December 19, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 2986/2017 & C.Ms. 12989/2017 & 27136/2017 &
27137/2017
MINAKSHI SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak Goel, Advocate
Versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Abhimanyu Singh &
Mr. Vinod Kumar Goyal, Advocates for
respondents No.1 to 3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
ORAL
1. Petitioner, who is Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) in English,
seeks a mandamus to the first three respondents to hold Departmental
Promotion Committee (DPC) for promoting her to the post of Post
Graduate Teacher (PGT) - English, against a vacant post. Quashing of
absorption order of fourth respondent and compliance of letter of 22nd
March, 2017 (Annexure P-20) is sought in this petition while drawing
attention of this Court to information dated 25th April, 2017 (Annexure P-
2 colly to C.M.27137/2017) sought under Right to Information Act, 2005
to show that petitioner's qualification of M.A. (English) was added in her
service record on 16th January, 2016 on the basis of marks sheet of M.A.
(English) submitted by her and the first respondent was called upon to
constitute the DPC on 15th December, 2016 and 6th March, 2017.
2. Respondent-school vide its Communication of 4th December, 2016
(Annexure P-10) called upon the petitioner to submit her M.A.(English)
degree for facilitating the holding of DPC. Petitioner claims to have
informed the respondent-School vide Communication of 6th December,
2016 (Annexure P-11) that she had applied for M.A. (English) degree
from Mahatma Gandhi University, Meghalaya but she has not received it
and she would submit it as soon as she receives it. Attention of this Court
is drawn by petitioner's counsel to Communication of 27 th December,
2016 (Annexure P-12) from Mahatma Gandhi University, Meghalaya,
vide which respondent-School was informed that the details of
petitioner's marks sheet of M.A. (English) degree sought by respondent-
School is correct and genuine.
3. Learned counsel for fourth respondent submits that the order
absorbing the fourth respondent in the respondent-School was passed in
February, 2017 and she was actually absorbed in the academic session
commencing in April, 2017. But in this regard, there is no communication
on record.
4. Be that as it may. It is evident from respondent-School's
Communication of 14th March, 2017 (Annexure P-16) to respondent-
Directorate of Education that the post of PGT (English) is a promotional
post and is under process and therefore a request was made to constitute
the DPC at the earliest. Learned counsel for first respondent submits that
the Directorate of Education had repeatedly informed the respondent-
School to convene the DPC or else the school would be responsible for
the lapse.
5. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for petitioner
submits that although the provisional degree (Annexure P-15) has been
submitted in March, 2017 and application for providing proper M.A.
(English) degree was made to Mahatma Gandhi University, Meghalaya
way back in December, 2016 but there is no record to show that the
petitioner had done so. In any case, petitioner's case for promotion is
required to be considered by respondents, as it is the stand of respondent-
School that the post in question is a Feeder Post. Absorption of fourth
respondent against this post cannot be the basis to deny
conditional/provisional promotion to petitioner. It is for respondent-
Directorate of Education to consider and find out as to where else fourth
respondent can be absorbed. It is also required to be seen by respondent-
Directorate of Education as to why the marks sheet for M.A. (English) is
not to be considered as valid qualification, particularly when respondent-
School has already received a communication from Mahatma Gandhi
University, Meghalaya that petitioner's marks sheet of M.A. (English) is
genuine and correct.
6. No doubt as per Communication of 30th January, 2017 (Annexure
P-13), filling up of promotional post was to be complied with by 20th
December, 2016 and thereafter, surplus employees were to be adjusted
against the vacant posts, but since respondent-School has already been
taken over by respondent- Directorate of Education, therefore, it is for
the respondent- Directorate of Education to explain as to why petitioner's
marks sheet for M.A. (English) was not considered as a valid
qualification for holding DPC prior to 20th December, 2016 and if no
valid reason is forthcoming, why should petitioner suffer? These are the
factual aspects which are not required to be gone into while exercising
writ jurisdiction and are required to be considered by the first respondent.
To keep the facts straight, let petitioner make a concise Representation to
first respondent within two weeks and upon receiving of such
Representation, respondent- Directorate of Education will address above
referred aspects and would pass a speaking order to ensure that the Feeder
Post is duly filled up by promotion and if it cannot be done, then specific
reasons for not doing so, be provided to petitioner within a period of
twelve weeks. It is made clear that petitioner will submit M.A. (English)
degree to the first respondent as soon as she gets it. The fate of the
Representation be made known to petitioner within a week thereafter, so
that petitioner may avail of the remedies, as available in law, if need be.
7. With aforesaid directions and without commenting on the merits of
the case, this petition and applications are disposed of.
Dasti.
SUNIL GAUR
(JUDGE)
DECEMBER 19, 2017
r
