UMA MUDGAL Vs. CRPF PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the advertisement dated June 24, 2015 issued by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 for filling up the post of Principal in CRPF Public School, Rohini, Delhi by direct recruitment and seeking a further direction to the respondents to convene the DPC for the post of Principal in CRPF Public School, Rohini, Delhi.

(2.) It is the submission of Mr. Arvind Kr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner joined the respondent No. 1 School on July 06, 1992. The petitioner is M.Sc., B.Ed. Thereafter in the year 1996 she has acquired the qualification of M.Ed. (Education Management) and has also completed M. Phil. (Education) in the year 2008. Her case for filling up the post of Vice -Principal was not considered by the respondent No. 2. Instead they have appointed one Anjali Malik. The said appointment is under challenge before this Court. Subsequently, she has been appointed as Vice -Principal with effect from July 01, 2011. She is a senior most PGT in the school as well as is the Vice -Principal and officiating Principal. In the month of February, 2015 the incumbent Principal - Mr. H.R. Sharma had tendered his resignation. Since the vacancy of Principal has arisen and as per the rules and regulations of the Delhi School Education Act and the circulars, the post of Principal is required to be filled up first by promotion, failing which by direct recruitment. According to Mr. Gupta, the post of Principal is a selection post and the benchmark for the post of Principal is "Good". He would further state that as per Memorandum dated February 08, 2002, the pay scale of Principal is Rs. 10,000 -15,200 (pre -revised) and the benchmark is "Good" and only for the higher pay scale of Rs. 12,000 -16,500, the benchmark is "Very Good". The DPC for the post of Principal was held on May 25, 2015. The DPC did not consider any candidate including the petitioner on the ground that the benchmark for the post of Principal is "Very Good" and none of the candidates had that benchmark. Pursuant thereto the respondents have issued the impugned advertisement dated June 24, 2015.

(3.) According to Mr. Gupta, the petitioner made representations to the respondents on July 10, 2015, July 16, 2015, July 21, 2015 and August 05, 2015 and requested them to reconvene the DPC, as the procedure adopted by the respondents is illegal and also the benchmark for the post is "Good" and not "Very Good". He has also drawn my attention to the reply to the RTI application received by the petitioner vide letter dated August 03, 2015, wherein the Govt. of NCT of Delhi -respondent No. 3 has stated that for promotion of Principal through DPC conducted by UPSC in its DPC meeting held on 02nd, 03rd, 04th and 07th April, 2014, the benchmark was considered as "Good". It is also his submission that the benchmark being "Good", which the petitioner has achieved, she could not have been denied promotion to the post of Principal. In other words, it is his submission that had the petitioner been considered with the benchmark "Good", she would have been promoted and there was no occasion for the respondents to advertise the post of Principal by filling up the same through direct recruitment. He has also stated that even if the benchmark is "Very Good", in the absence of any communication of the ACRs below the benchmark of "Very Good" for the relevant years, the said ACRs could not have been considered by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 at the time of promotion. He would rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case reported as : 2008 (8) SCC 725 Dev Dutt vs. Union of India & Ors. He would also rely upon the order dated February 23, 2015 passed by the Division Bench in LPA 99/2015 Balwant Kaur vs. Director of Education & Ors., wherein the learned counsel appearing for the Director of Education has in the hearing dated February 27, 2015 stated that as per the instructions given to her, the benchmark for appointment by promotion to the post of Principal in a Senior Secondary School is "Good". It is his submission that this statement of learned counsel for the petitioner is in conformity with the reply to the RTI application given on August 03, 2015. He has also drawn my attention to the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Balwant Kaur vs. Director of Education & Ors., W.P.(C) 7418/2014 dated January 09, 2015.