Delhi High Court
Harish Kumar Bandhu vs Navyug School Educational ... on 26 April, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: April 26, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 6102/2016
HARISH KUMAR BANDHU ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Shruti Munjal, Advocate
Versus
NAVYUG SCHOOL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY AND ORS
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Tarunvir Singh Khehar and
Mr. Adhiraj Choudhary, Advocates for
respondent No.1
Mr. Vivek B. Saharya, ASC for respondent
No.2-NDMC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. Quashing of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC)
proceedings of 22nd March, 2016 declaring petitioner ineligible for
promotion to the post of Post Graduate Teacher (Hindi) is sought by
petitioner, who is a Trained Graduate Teacher in Sanskrit. It is the case of
petitioner that he has been teaching Sanskrit for last more than two
decades and denial of promotion to petitioner is not justified as in the
same very DPC proceedings (Annexure P-6), Murari Lal, who was
teaching Zoology, and Manju Devi, who was teaching Botany, have been
promoted as PGT in Biology. There is no pleading in the writ petition on
the aforesaid aspect. However, in the rejoinder filed by petitioner, there is
an averment to this effect. Although a reply has been filed to the
rejoinder, but it is silent on this aspect.
2. It is the stand of respondent-School that as per the Recruitment
Rules for the post of Post Graduate Teachers (Annexure P-1), the
experience of three years in teaching the concerned subject in Senior
Secondary and Higher Classes is essential. It is asserted in the counter
affidavit filed by respondent-School that petitioner had not taught Hindi
continuously for three years.
3. During the course of hearing, petitioner's counsel has placed on
record Circular of 22nd September, 2008 issued by Government of NCT
of Delhi on the subject of 'promotion to the post of PGT in
Hindi/Sanskrit/Urdu/Punjabi from feeder cadre of TGT (MIL)'. So, it is
submitted that any teacher from feeder cadre, i.e. Hindi/Sanskrit/Urdu/
Punjabi, can be promoted to the post of PGT in any of these Disciplines.
There is no foundation laid in respect of the aforesaid Circular of 22 nd
September, 2008, therefore, it cannot be looked into. However, the basic
issue needs to be addressed and cannot be left unattended. Though no
case for quashing of appointment of third respondent is made out, as she
has been promoted on the post of PGT in question because she had the
requisite experience in Hindi, but, the case of petitioner needs to be
considered for promotion to the post of PGT in Hindi in light of aforesaid
Circular of 22nd September, 2008 against existing vacancy of PGT
(Hindi).
4. Before it is so done, it needs to be clarified by respondent-School
as to under what circumstances, promotion of Murari Lal from the
Zoology and Manju Devi from Botany to Biology Discipline was made.
To provide an opportunity to respondent-School to clarify as to how
Murari Lal and Manju Devi were so promoted, it is deemed appropriate
to permit petitioner to make a concise Representation on the basis of
aforesaid Circular of 22nd September, 2008. Let such Representation be
made by petitioner within three weeks from today, to respondent-School.
If such a Representation is received, then respondent-School shall
effectively consider it, by passing a speaking order thereon in light of
aforesaid Circular of 22nd September, 2008 and if it is found that
petitioner is eligible for promotion to the post of PGT (Hindi), then
necessary steps in this regard be taken by respondent-School. The fate of
the said Representation be made known to petitioner within twelve
weeks, so that petitioner may avail of the remedies as available in law, if
need be.
5. With aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
APRIL 26, 2018
s
