S L DUTTA & ANR Vs. SURESH SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 19.03.2001 which had endorsed the findings of the trial judge dated 12.01.2000 whereby the suit of the plaintiff Ms.Suresh Srivastava had been decreed in her favour.

(2.) Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction; she was employed as an Upper Divisional Clerk (UDC) with effect from 02.7.1967; her conditions of services were governed by the Delhi School Education Act, 1973. She was academically qualified and fulfilled the requirements for promotion to the post of Head Clerk. On 14.5.1974 the Education Officer had sent a letter (Ex.PW-1/1) to the Manager of the school recommending promotion of the plaintiff who was otherwise eligible on all grounds w.e.f. 03.7.1974. This communication recorded that since the C.Rs. of the plaintiff had not been counter signed by Reviewing Officer, the requirement of the Rules not having been fulfilled the same could not be considered as adverse entries against the plaintiff. Her promotion had accordingly been recommended. Vide a subsequent letter dated 26.9.1975 (Ex.PW-2/R-2), the Education Officer had written to the school that the UDC i.e. the plaintiff may not be promoted as her case is yet to be decided by the Disciplinary Authority but the post of Head Clerk-cum-Assistant should be kept vacant. It is not in dispute that thereafter in the year 1976 disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the plaintiff which had culminated in a minor penalty of withholding of two increments. The case of the plaintiff is that in spite of the communication dated 14.5.1974 to the school management, the school management failed to promote the plaintiff to the post of Head Clerk. She had fulfilled all the requisite criteria; she was fit, qualified and had a satisfactory record since the last five preceding years; she had been made a victim because of the ulterior designs of the management. Her request for promotion was not adhered to. In these circumstances, suit for declaration and mandatory injunction had been filed by the plaintiff seeking the aforenoted relief i.e. the relief that she be promoted from the post of UDC to Head Clerk as she had fulfilled all requisites criteria.

(3.) As already aforenoted both the two fact finding Courts below had decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. It was held that the plaintiff was entitled to the requisite promotion. The contention of the defendant that the services of the defendant were dissatisfactory had been rejected; adverse entry or the adverse record sought to be proved against the plaintiff was not adduced in evidence before the trial judge. Provisions of Rule 112(4) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 had not been adhered to as the purported adverse entries had neither been communicated to the plaintiff nor the same had been counter signed by the Reviewing Officer; they had also not seen the light of the day before the trial judge.