The main legal point established in the judgment is the authority of the Director of Education to approve promotions in an aided school, as per the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, and the importance of a comprehensive assessment of candidates' performance in promotion decisions.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.

1. As both these writ petitions involve challenge to a common order dated September 8, 2010 with identical facts, the same are being disposed of, by this common order. The parties shall be referred to, in terms of their status in W.P.(C) No.7360/2010 i.e Petitioner as “Petitioner”, Director of Education (respondent No.1), Mr. Hemraj (respondent No.2) and Salwan Boys Senior Secondary School, the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.8138/2010 (respondent No.3).

2. By the impugned order dated September 8, 2010, passed by the Directorate of Education respondent No.1 pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.694/2009 dated March 17, 2010, the Director of Education has directed the promotion of respondent No.2 Hemraj to the post of PGT (Maths) with immediate effect.

3. Some of the relevant facts are, in the year 2005 the post of PGT (Maths) fell vacant in the respondent No.3 School, on the retirement of Mr. K.K. Nakra. On September 28, 2007, a DPC was held in the respondent No.3 School. As the respondent No.2 only was eligible for promotion as per recruitment Rules, the DPC on consideration noting the ACR grading of Mr. Hemraj, the respondent No.2 for the period 2002-03 to 2006-07 consisted of three “Good” and two “Average”, decided to refer the matter to the Act Branch. A communication dated October 6, 2007, in that regard, was sent to Assistant Director of Education, Act Branch. The Act Branch, vide its communication dated October 18, 2008, had, on a consideration of the DPC and the show-cause notice issued to the respondent No.3 School and the reply given by the School, rejected the minutes of the DPC held on September 28, 2007 and directed the School to conduct fresh DPC for promotion of eligible candidates. It is noted that Mr. Hemraj respondent No.2 filed W.P.(C) No.694/2009 against convening a fresh DPC. The writ petition was listed on July 14, 2009, when this Court had directed that a fresh DPC be held but the selection may not be finalised till the next date. It appears that, against the said order, Mr. Hemraj filed an intra-court appeal i.e LPA No.541/2009, which was dismissed by the Appellate Court noting that the impugned order i.e July 14, 2009 was an interlocutory order. The DPC was held on October 29, 2009. It consisted of five Members, two representing the School and three being from the Education Department/Subject Expert.

4. The decision of the DPC was not unanimous, the Members gave their views vide two annexures A and B, which were appended to the DPC proceedings. Annexure A was signed by the two Members representing the School and annexure B by the three outside Members. In annexure A, the Members representing the School, were of the view that the EO/DE nominee/Subject Expert have commented on the ACR grading of the respondent No.2. They have also stated that EO/DE nominee were of a biased mind in favour of the respondent No.2. Whereas, in annexure B, the three other Members have, by noting that Mr. Hemraj was the senior most Teacher and also noting that the ACR grading does not reflect the work done by Mr. Hemraj, have recommended his promotion as PGT (Maths). It is also noted, a meeting of the Management Committee of the respondent No.3 School was held on February 20, 2010, wherein, the Committee approved the promotion of the petitioner to the post of PGT (Maths) with immediate effect. This aspect was noted by this Court in its hearing dated March 17, 2010 in W.P.(C) No.694/2009, wherein this Court disposing of the petition, directed that the recommendation of the fresh DPC along with the decision, if any taken by the Management Committee, be placed by the School before the Director of Education within a period of two days from the date of the order and the Director of Education respondent No.1 was directed to take decision strictly in terms of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 and guidelines of the Government, if any governing the issue. It was also ma