The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering relevant factors, such as experience and aptitude in the relevant subject, in the selection process for promotion to a teaching position.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

( 1 ) IN these writ proceedings the petitioner calls into question an order promoting the fourth respondent as Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) in History, in the third Respondent-School (hereafter referred to as "the School" ).

( 2 ) THE writ petition was heard and disposed off on 13. 7. 1999 when this Court quashed the impugned promotion order dated 12. 4. 1997 and declared that the petitioner was entitled to be appointed as PGT (History) with effect from 12. 2. 1997. The fourth respondent apparently carried the matter in appeal; the division Bench by its judgment and order dated 13. 5. 2002, allowed the appeal primarily on the ground that the respondents in these proceedings had not been heard, and directed a fresh disposal on the merits after hearing all the parties.

( 3 ) DURING the course of these proceedings the parties filed additional pleadings by way of affidavits, replies and rejoinder. The matter was heard for final disposal on 16. 5. 2006.

( 4 ) THE factual matrix is narrow and by and large undisputed. The petitioner joined the school as TGT-General on 4. 9. 1978. In the course of her duties she has been teaching (upto Class 10th leven) various subjects, including History. The fourth respondent, on the other hand, joined the school on 4. 10. 1969 as a tgt in Science.

( 5 ) ONE Shri Bhupinder Singh, PGT in History retired from the post on 30. 4. 1996. The School, is an added Institution to the extent of 95%; the first two respondents have considerable control over it in terms of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and Rules framed under the Act (hereafter referred to as "the Act" and "the Rules" respectively ). The petitioner alleges that even though the post fell vacant on 30. 4. 1996, and the Directorate gave the necessary clearance to fill it up on 3. 5. 1996, nevertheless the school management did not take steps to hold a DPC and promote the petitioner, the sole eligible candidate at that stage because it had the intention to deprive her of that benefit. It is also alleged that Departmental Promotion Committee Meetings were convened to fill-up vacancies on 1. 7. 1996 and again on 15. 7. 1996, nevertheless the petitioner's candidature was not considered and she was not promoted as PGT (History ). In this background, the petitioner avers that to her dismay on 1. 3. 1997, she became aware that the fourth respondent, who had been working as a science Teacher and acquired M. A. qualification in History in August, 1996, (i. e. after the vacancy occurred) was promoted with effect from 1. 7. 1997 as PGT.

( 6 ) THE petitioner claims to have unavailingly and represented against the action of the Management, subsequently she approached the Court. In support of the writ petition it has been averred that the respondents were bound to consider the candidature of those eligible as on the date of occurrence of the vacancy and not on the date when the DPC was held. If the Management had followed this rule in that perspective, the fourth respondent was ineligible as on 1. 5. 1996 because he acquired the qualifications only in August, 1996.

( 7 ) THE fourth respondent has averred that the DPC Meeting held on 12. 2. 1997 cannot be found fault with ; it considered the candidature of the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent who were both eligible as per their qualification for promotion to the post of PGT (History ). The School and the Directorate urged that the basis of promoting the fourth respondent were the Annual confidential Reports and the relative performance of the students, observed for a five year period. It was claimed that upon a fair consideration of these materials, the respondents concluded that the fourth respondent was better suited and, therefore, entitled to be promoted.

( 8 ) AS far as the issue of eligibility of the fourth respondent is concerned, reliance has been placed upon the Recruitment Rules for the post of PGT issued by the Directorate on 10. 7. 1975. According to these r