POONAM SHARMA Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed with prayer for quashing and setting aside the minutes of meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee ('DPC') dtd. 17/6/2011 whereby the DPC directed the respondent no. 2 school to communicate his average ACRs to respondent no. 3 and further directed that after getting his explanation, Managing Committee may rectify the shortcomings/deficiencies in his ACRs. There is further prayer for quashing the action of respondent no. 2 in reviewing the ACRs of respondent no. 3 for the period 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2008-09 on the ground that the same was done without any authority and jurisdiction, being in violation of Rule 112(7) of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (DSER, 1973). The petitioner has also prayed for setting aside the minutes of the DPC dtd. 23/12/2011 and its recommendations, whereby the name of respondent no. 3 was recommended for promotion to the post of PGT (History) and all the consequential orders passed in pursuance of the recommendation of the DPC dtd. 23/12/2011 for appointment of respondent no. 3. The petitioner seeks her promotion to the post of PGT (History) instead with effect from the date when respondent no. 3 was promoted on the said date, with all consequential benefits.

(2.) Facts of the case are that the post of PGT (History) fell vacant in the respondent no. 2 school and for the purpose of filling up the said post, the Management of respondent no. 2 held a DPC on 17/6/2011. Three persons were in the zone of consideration viz. the petitioner herein, who was TGT (Maths); respondent no. 3 herein, who was TGT (English) and Smt. Shashi Rani, who was TGT (Hindi). During the scrutiny of ACRs of the eligible candidates for the last five years, it was observed by the DPC that ACRs of respondent no. 3 were marked as 'average' for the years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2008-09, which had not been communicated to him. Thus, the DPC advised the school to convey to the respondent no. 3 regarding his average ACRs for the aforesaid years, seek his explanation, after which the Managing Committee may re-consider the case.

(3.) The minutes of meeting of the DPC dtd. 17/6/2011 are reproduced hereinbelow: