SHAKUNTLA BHATLA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, Director of Education has given hearing to the petitioner and disposed of the representation of the petitioner. The stand of respondent no.5, i.e. school is that the petitioner retired as principal. Counsel for respondent no.5 has contended that the liability of respondent no.5 is 5% and 95% is of the Directorate of Education - Pursuant to the order passed by this Court respondents 3 & 4 have filed additional affidavit, inter alia, stating that the petitioner is not entitled to pension which is to be paid to the principal as the petitioner drew the salary of the Principal in terms of interim order passed by this Court. Along with the additional affidavit which has been filed by respondents 3 & 4, minutes of the DPC which was held on 14/03/1991 which are crucial for determination of the controversy has also been filed by respbndents 3 & 4. The same are to the following effect:

(2.) The following employees in order of seniority were considered :-

(3.) Out of the four members of the DPC, three were from Directorate of Education, Joint Director (Admn), Joint Director (Planning) and Deputy Director of Education. Ail the three were of the opinion that the post of the principal was promotional post and petitioner may be promoted as principal. In the minutes it was also pointed out that no adverse entry in the ACR till the petitioner went to the Court was recorded by respondent no.5 nor the said adverse entry was communicated to the petitioner. That means when petitioner approached the Court for vindication of her right, the school management started giving adverse entries to the petitioner and said adverse entries were not communicated to the petitioner. It is in this background all the three representatives of Director of Education in the said DPC did not agree with Prabhat Raman who was the Chairman of the DPC with regard to denying promotion to the petitioner. They did not agree that adverse entries in the ACRs of the petitioner could be considered as same were not communicated to the petitioner. It is shocking to observe that a gentleman was allowed to carry his whims and fancies and Directorate of Education did not take any action under the Act to redress the legitimate grievance of the petlitioner. They miserably failed to perform their obligation under the Delhi Education Act. If the grievance of the petitioner would have been settled by the Directorate of Education, the petitioner would not have to approach this court as well as Supreme Court time and again. Filing of this additional affidavit by the Director of Education does not inspire any credence or credibility. Additional affidavit does not serve the cause of Justice.