SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(Del) 391

B.K.RAMAMOORTHY
UMA MITRA – Appellant
Versus
DY. DIRECTOR (EDUCATION), DISTRICT NEW DELHI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
R.K.SAINI, Rajiv Mehta

K. Ramamoorthy, J. (Oral ).

( 1 ) THE petitioner is a Maths Teacher in the fourth respondent School. She became eligible to be promoted as PGT on the post of PGT (Maths) which fell vacant on the 1st of April, 1995. The DPC of the school made the selection and from the 10th of July, 1995, the petitioner has been working as PGT (Maths) in the School. Seeking the approval, the fourth respondent, management, wrote to the Education Officer, Zone 26, New Delhi in the following terms:-

"i am directed to inform you, as per instruction of the Chairman of the Managing Committee of the School that the order of vacancies as mentioned in our previous letter No. SPV/42/1995-90 dated 23. 6. 95 may be amended to record according to the date of creation of vacancies as mentioned below:- 1. The post of PGT (Hist) from the 5th Jan. 95. 2. The post of PGT (Econ) from the 1st Feb. 95. 3. The post of PGT (Maths) from the 1st April 95. It may also be stated that according to your views for keeping reservation 40 point roster for promotions also will not be applicable to the post of PGT (Maths) which is a general category vacancy. The vacancies for 1 and 2 cannot be filled up by promotion as there is no



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top