ASHOK KUMAR BHATT Vs. LT GOVERNOR GNCTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two Petitioners, who were working as post-graduate teachers (,,PGTs) for English and Hindi respectively in the Sant Nirankari Boys Senior Secondary School (,,the School), Respondent No. 3, which is a recognised and aided School under the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (,,DSEA) and the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (,,DSER), have filed this writ petition seeking directions to the Director of Education (,,DoE), Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (,,GNCTD), Respondent No. 2, and the School to consider their cases for promotion to the post of Principal and Vice-Principal (,,VP) respectively and be granted promotion as such from the date on which Respondent No. 4, Dr. Narender Kumar, and Respondent No. 5, Dr. Ram Gopal, were granted promotion as Principal and VP, respectively.

(2.) PETITIONER No. 1 was appointed as PGT (English) in the School on 10th January 1981. PETITIONER No. 2 was appointed as PGT (Hindi) in the School on 28th January 1981. The next higher post was that of VP and the post higher to that was of the Principal. On 25th February 1980 the DoE issued the relevant notifications announcing the recruitment rules pertaining to the said posts.

(3.) THE Petitioners state that after the DPC held on 25th September 1991 for the purpose of selecting the VP, the then Education Officer, Zone-V, District North by a note in March 1992 recorded on the concerned file that the Manager of the School was interested in a PGT who was junior even though the record of some of the senior PGTs was better. It was found from the record that the annual confidential reports (,,ACRs) of the concerned candidates were either tampered with or manipulated. THE ACRs of the PGTs recommended by the management who were junior to the Petitioner, were upgraded from ,,good to ,,outstanding and those of the senior PGTs like Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, downgraded from ,,outstanding to ,,good. It is only after directions were issued by the DoE under Section 24 (3) DSEA to the management of the School that it should not bypass the senior most PGT, that another DPC was held in February 1993. It is submitted that the DPC held in February 1993 was also vitiated because of manipulation of the ACRs and because the Manager of the School ensured that Respondent No. 4 was selected as the Principal. It is further submitted that under Rule 96 DSER, the DPC was in case of an aided school to comprise of the Chairman of the MC, two educationists nominated by the DoE out of whom at least one was to be a person having experience of school education. By a circular dated 8th September 1992 of the DoE, it was clarified that a nominee of the DoE on the Selection Committee/DPC should be nominated in order to avoid the lengthy procedure for inviting a nominee in each and every case to fill up the resultant vacancy. Consequently, the DPC for aided schools was to comprise of, in the case of the post of the Principal, the Chairman of the MC, Deputy Director of Education (`DDE) of the concerned District, the Deputy Director of Education (Act), Additional Director of Education (School) and in his/her absence Additional Director of Education (Administration). However, the composition of the DPC held to fill up the posts of Principal and VP in the School was as under: