The main legal point established is that for selection to a post, both merit and seniority must be considered, and the Court cannot interfere with the decision of the selection committee unless there is evidence of illegality, irregularity, bias, or mala fide affecting the selection.

Deepa Sharma, J.

1. Vide the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the selection of respondent No.4 to the post of Vice-Principal.

2. The admitted facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as TGT (English) on 30.07.1983 and on 18.03.1991, she was appointed as PGT (English) on the basis of an interview by the Departmental Promotional Committee (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DPC’). Respondent No.4 was also working as PGT and was senior to 9 months to the petitioner. For the post of Vice-Principal, the applications/consents from all the PGT teachers were called for 20.10.2013. The petitioner applied for the said post on 31.10.2013. Besides respondent No.4, seven other PGTs applied for the post of Vice-Principal. All of them were called for an interaction with the DPC on 11.11.2013 and accordingly they all had appeared before the DPC.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that on 26.11.2013, the respondent had verbally announced in the school that respondent No. 4 had been selected for the Vice-Principal post. The said selection of respondent No.4 has been challenged by the petitioner on the grounds, that the academic and administrative experience of petitioner is better and more impressive than that of respondent No.4. That the break in service, disciplinary enquiry against respondent No.4 and number of ‘Leaves Without Pay’ breaks should have been taken into account while drawing the merit list of the candidates, but the same had not been done. That her ACR is better than that of respondent No.4. She had earned two ‘Good’, two ‘Very Good’ and one ‘Outstanding’ ACRs during the previous five years prior to the date of selection while the respondent No.4 has not earned any ‘Outstanding’ ACR and had earned only three ‘Very Good’ and two ‘Good’ ACRs. It is further contended that the service record and the ACRs of the candidates have not been given due weightage by the Selection Committee. The petitioner had protested vide her letter dated 28.11.2013 and also offered to resign from the service. However, she withdrew her resignation before it was accepted vide her letter dated 30.11.2013. The respondent communicated to he vide letter dated 06.12.2013 that her withdrawal of resignation had been accepted and her other averments were found lacking in substance and merit. The DPC in this case has not acted in a fair manner and had acted in a biased manner and the whole exercise seems to be just an eye-wash and the entire farce was a well orchestrated attempt to give effect to the decision which has already been taken. The petitioner has given the comparative data of herself and respondent No.4 in paragraph 15 of her petition contending that the merit, as reflected in ACRs in service file of the candidates, has not been considered by the DPC. The petitioner had also asked for direction to respondent to supply her, her ACRs.

4. The claim is contested by all the respondents. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed their counter-affidavit and respondent No.4 has adopted the counter-affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The respondents have denied any favourism towards respondent No.4. It is submitted that DPC had taken into consideration all the relevant factors and had acted as per the rules and procedure and the selection was not motivated by any criteria. It is submitted that post of Vice-Principal was a selection post and method of recruitment to the post was by promotion. It is submitted that DPC had taken into consideration the ACRs of the last five years of all the candidates and all the other relevant materials, including the merit of the candidate. It has not selected the respondent No.4 merely because of her seniority. It is submitted that chart prepared by the petitioner is a self-screening chart. It is further submitted that the respondent No.4 had taken the approval of leave without pay and tha