Back
High Court Of Delhi
SUSHMA BANGA - Appellant
Versus
DELHI ADMINISTRATION - Respondent
Civil 1099 of 1988
Decided On : 03/13/2003
If the stand of the Directorate of Education that a Domestic Science Teacher cannot be promoted as PGT in any other discipline is correct, there was no question of granting approval to the promotion of Mrs. K. Sawhney as PGT (Economics) as, according to the case of the Directorate, she was not even eligible to be promoted. Directorate could not grant approval to the promotion of Mrs. K.Sawhney only on the ground that no other eligible TGT teacher was available in the school for promotion. If a teacher is ineligible, he/she is ineligible for all purposes and she could not be promoted on any ground. The fact that the respondent themselves had granted approval to the promotion of Mrs. K. Sawhney, another senior Domestic Science Teacher as PGT (Economics) clearly show that even Domestic Science Teachers were eligible for promotion as PGT in other discipline. There is otherwise also no bar either in the Circular or in the Act or the Rules whereby a TGT in one discipline cannot be promoted as PGT in another discipline.
Under Rule 98 of the Rules framed under Delhi School Education Act, the appointment of every employee of a school is to be made by the Managing Committee and the same is required to be approved by the Directorate of Education. Provided, however, that the approval of the Director will be required only where the Directors nominee was not present in the Selection Committee/DPC or in case there was difference of opinion amongst the. members of the Selection Committee. In the present case the nominee of the Directorate of Education was present in the Selection Committee when the name of the petitioner was considered for promotion as PGT (History). There was no difference of opinion amongst the members of the Selection Committee for her promotion as PGT. In this situation, the approval of the Director in terms of Rule 98 was not required to be taken.
In any case, the Director having approved the promotion of the petitioner by its letter dated 14.4.1998, there was no question of withdrawing such approval without first giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Even assuming that approval was given by mistake, it was a duty of the Director to first issue a notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why the approval be not withdrawn. It is only after hearing the petitioner and after observing the principles of natural justice, that order might have been withdrawn by the Director. The Director having passed the order allegedly withdrawing the approval already granted in favor of the petitioner without giving on opportunity of hearing has, clearly acted illegally and arbitrarily.
The order of the Directorate of Education dated 28.4.1988 allegedly withdrawing the approval already granted to the promotion of the petitioner to the post of PGT is hereby quashed and the petitioner would be deemed to have been validly promoted to the post of PGT (History) w.e.f. 3.9.1986 and shall be entitled to all benefits of such promotion including the pay and allowances. Petitioner, accordingly, stands disposed of leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
( 1 ) PETITIONER was appointed as a TGT on 26. 7. 1969 in the respondent No. 5-School. She was a post-graduate in History. In 1986, she was the senior most Domestic Science teacher serving with the school. A post of TGT (History) fell vacant in the school in 1986. In terms of the Circular dated 21. 4. 1970 issued by the Directorate of Education to all the Managers and Principals of the schools regarding selection/promotion of principals and teachers, it was directed that all the posts in aided schools will be considered as non-selection posts and if any post in the higher grade fell vacant and a teacher having required qualification was available in the same school, senior most teacher be promoted to this higher post. For such promotion, the work of the teacher should be satisfactory as per the inspection report of the last two years and confidential record should be good and the teacher should have three years teaching experience in his grade. It was observed in the Circular that in case the teacher fulfills the above condition, he can be promoted subject to the approval of the Directorate of Education. It was further observed in the Circulate that for the appointments/promotion of teacher the presence of the Government nominee in the Selection Committee was essential. It was also directed that only when the teacher having the required qualification was not available in the school and the selection was to be made from outside that the Manager of the school was to call the names from the employment exchange.
( 2 ) THE aforesaid circular makes it clear that in cases of promotion to the higher post, the school must first consider the senior most teacher with the required qualifications and it is only in cases when teacher with the required qualification is not available in the school that the school could call for names from the employment exchange. In the present case, the Selection Committee was constituted by the school in accordance with the Rules for considering the names of the eligible teachers. The nominee of the Directorate of Education was also called to be present in the Selection Committee and in the meeting of the Selection Committee held in the school, the nominee of the Directorate of Education was also present. Petitioner was having Post Graduate degree in History and as the post to be filled was PGT (History) her name was also considered by the Selection Committee. After considering the names of the candidates for promotion to the post of PGT, the Selection Committee recommended the petitioner s name for such post. On 2. 9. 1986, the Manager of the school informed the petitioner that as per recommendations of the DPC held on 2. 9. 1986, she was being promoted to the post of PGT (History) with immediate effect and she was asked to join duties as PGT (History) immediately. Since 2. 9. 1986, the petitioner is performing the duties as PGT (History ).
( 3 ) THOUGH in terms of Rule 98 of the Delhi School Education Rules in case the nominee of the Directorate of Education is present in the Selection Committee/dpc, the approval of the Director is not required, however, the Managing Committee of the school by way of abundant caution wrote to the Directorate of Education to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner as PGT (History. When no reply was received from the Directorate of Education for sometime, a letter was written by the petitioner on 8. 9. 1987 to the Directorate of Education to grant necessary approval to the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Post-Graduate Teacher in History w. e. f. 3. 9. 1986. On 14. 4. 1988, the Directorate of Education wrote to the Manager of the school, with reference to his letter dated 1. 2. 1987, conveying its approval to the promotion of the petitioner to the post of PGT (History) w. e. f. 3. 9. 1986, the date on which she resumed duties as PGT.
( 4 ) THE Directorate of Education it appears was contemplating to withdraw its approval to the promotion o
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
