Delhi High Court
Uma Mitra vs Shyama Prasad Vidyalaya Managing ... on 1 May, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: May 01, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 6464/2012
UMA MITRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate
versus
SHYAMA PRASAD VIDYALAYA MANAGING COMMITTEE
AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Priyanka Ghosh, Advocate for
respondent No.1
Mr. Sanjay Dewan and Ms. Palak Rohmetra,
Advocates for respondents No.2 & 3
Mrs. Veeran Rani Singh, DDE, Zone-26 and
Mr. P. Kaushik, L.A. Zone-26
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. Benefit of second and third financial upgradation is sought by
petitioner w.e.f. 27th September, 2003 and 27th September, 2009 under the
Assured Career Progression Scheme, 1999 (for short 'ACP Scheme') and
the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme, 2009 (for short
'MACP Scheme').
2. Petitioner's request for grant of ACP was made on 16 th August,
2011 and vide Communication of 7th September, 2011 (Annexure P-11),
she was informed that her case for grant of ACP was considered by the
Committee, but it was not approved. In response to this petition, the stand
of respondent-Directorate of Education is that case of petitioner for grant
of second ACP due in September, 2003 was rejected due to petitioner's
ACRs being 'Average' for the last three years.
3. Regarding petitioner's claim for third financial upgradation under
the MACP, the stand taken in paragraph No.10 of the counter affidavit
filed by respondent-Directorate of Education is that the Departmental
Screening Committee had considered petitioner's case for grant of third
ACP, but had rejected it as ACR gradings of petitioner for three years
preceding the year 2009 were found to be below the benchmark.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was never
made aware of the 'average' grading in ACRs for the period prior to the
year 2003 and of the period three years prior to the year 2009 being
below the benchmark. Liberty is sought by petitioner's counsel to now
file Representation/Appeal against the 'Average' grading in three ACRs,
recorded for the period prior to September, 2003 and also three ACR
gradings prior to September, 2009.
5. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is deemed appropriate
to dispose of this petition with permission to petitioner to file
Representation/Appeal against the ACRs for the three years preceding
September, 2003 and also against three ACRs prior to September, 2009,
as the said ACRs are said to be below the benchmark. To enable
petitioner to do so, let copy of the said ACRs be provided by respondent-
School to petitioner through her counsel-Mr. R.K. Saini, within six weeks
from today.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that upon receipt of copies
of the said ACRs, Representation/Appeal would be filed before
respondent-Directorate of Education within four weeks. Let
Representation/Appeal so filed against ACRs in question be considered
by respondent-Directorate of Education on merits within a period of
twelve weeks and its fate be conveyed to petitioner within two weeks
thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of the remedies as available in law,
if need be. It is made clear that in case petitioner's ACRs for the period in
question are revised and meet the benchmark, then petitioner's case for
grant of second and third financial upgradation be accordingly
considered.
7. With aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MAY 01, 2018
s
