( 1 ) THE facts of the case are singular. That the Petitioner holds an M. A. Degree in Economics from a recognised University. It appears that she was first employed with Respondent No. 3, which is admittedly a minority school as envisaged in Article 30 of the constitution of India, in 1975 as an Assistant Teacher. In 1981 she was promoted as TGT (Language ). Since 1986 she has been teaching Economics to the XIth and XIIth class students in Respondent No. 3. In 1990 a vacancy occurred for the post of PGT (Economics ). A DPC was constituted in which the nominee of the Department of education was present. There is no challenge by the department to the constitution or functioning of this dpc. The DPC by a unanimously decided to promote the petitioner as PGT (Economics ). The Department of education, however, has not granted its approval to this decision of the DPC. The consequence is that the subject in which she had postgraduated, but her promotion/appointment to this post has not received bureaucratic approval.

( 2 ) THE reason for not granting this approval has been explained by learned counsel appearing for the department to be that the Petitioner belongs to the cadre of TGT (Language ). She can, therefore, not be considered for promotion to the Cadre of PGT (Economics), even despite her being fully qualified and experienced for the job.

( 3 ) THE relevant enquiry to be conducted is to ascertain - whether, at the appropriate time, the petitioner fulfilled the qualification required for being considered for the appointment as TGT (Economics ). As stated hereinabove it is not in dispute that she fulfils this qualification. She "has also been teaching economics in the very same School (Respondent No. 3.) since 1986 even though she was a TGT (Language ). In this connection reliance has been placed on behalf of the Petitioner on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in CWP 591/1990 Mithlesh Kumari Mangla Vs. Lioutenant Governor wherein it was specifically held that the extant Rules do not mention any Feeder Cadre for the purpose of promotion as PGT (Sanskrit ). It was observed as below:

"mr. C. L. Narasimhan appearing for respondent No. 5, has taken us to the applicable rules for the promotion to the post of Post graduate Teacher made by the Directorate of education, Delhi Administration. According to the rules, in the event of promotion, the essential requirement is that a person must be a "trained Graduate Teacher in the scale of rs. 250-550 possessing post graduate diploma of 2 years duration in science from Delhi university with 5 years regular service in grade OR Trained Graduate Teachers Language in the scale of Rs. 250-550 possessing qualifications prescribed for direct recruits with 5 years regular service in the grade". It is the latter part of this rule, which is applicable to cases of Language Teachers. It is not disputed that the petitioner is in the scale of Rs. 250-550, and has been in regular service for five years in the grade. A perusal of the said rules shows that the said recruitment rules do not mention "feeder cadre" for the purposes of promotion as Post Graduate teacher (Sanskrit ). "

( 4 ) SYLLOGISTICALLY, if there is no feeder cadre for promotions to PGT (Sanscrit) there would be little reason to require it prevailing for other cadres also, whether it be from a particular subject to another or from the Language stream to the Science or Economic disciplines. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner drew attention to the case of Mrs. Satinder Bhatia who no doubt was a Language Teacher, but was promoted to PGT (English) although she was teaching Hindi. Reference was also made to a letter/clarification of the department bearing Ref. No. 507/2000-28 dated 24. 2. 98, wherein keeping the Recruitment Rules in perspective Smt. K. Khattar, TGT ( Science) was cleared for promotion to PGT (Economics ). The logic and reason in it being permissible for a Hindi teacher to be promoted as an all four subject