Fulfillment of possessing the requisite educational qualifications for the promotional post is essential for eligibility for financial up-gradation under the ACP Scheme.

1. The petitioner was employed by the Respondent No.1- School (hereinafter referred to as “the School”) in 1973, as Laboratory Assistant, and confirmed in 1975.

2. On 9th August, 1989, the Assured Career Progression Scheme (hereinafter referred to as “ACP Scheme”) was introduced by the Government, whereunder, employees, who were stagnating without promotion, were allowed two financial up-gradations within 24 years of their appointment, the first to be given at the end of the 12 years and second after 24 years.

3. Vide order dated 2nd June, 2006, the said Scheme was extended, first, to employees of National Capital Territory of Delhi and, thereafter, to employees of unaided public educational institutions, vide order dated 2nd June, 2006, w.e.f. 1999. It is stated that this was in compliance with order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, in O.A. 1507/2003 on 4th June, 2005, which was upheld by this Court vide judgment dated 3rd October, 2005.

4. Vide office order dated 4th January, 2008, the petitioner was upgraded, by the School, from the scale of Rs. 4000-100-6000 to Rs. 4500-125-7000. The petitioner, however, contends that this up-gradation was given effect form 1st April, 2006, whereas, if he were to be extended the benefit of the ACP Scheme, he would be entitled to financial up-gradation from 1999.

5. The matter was carried, by the petitioner, to the District Education Officer (DEO), who, apparently, sought for an answer from the School, which responded by stating that, as the petitioner did not possess the essential qualifications for recruitment to the post of Lab Assistant, at the time when he was so recruited, it was not possible to extend, to him, the benefit of the ACP Scheme, the School contended that, despite the Petitioner not possessing the said qualification, he was being continued as a Lab Assistant on humanitarian ground.

6. The District Education Officer (DEO), vide communication dated 21st October, 2010, addressed to the School, expressed dissatisfaction with this response, from the School, and sought to know as to why, if the petitioner was not qualified, he was appointed to the said post at first place.

7. The School responded vide letter dated 28th October, 2010, stating that the fact that the petitioner, who had been appointed as Lab Assistant in 1973, did not possess the requisite educational qualification for such appointment, was noticed, for the first time, in 2008 and that as, by the time, he had already put in 35 years of service, the School did not deem it appropriate to take any action in that regard, and allowed him to continue in service.

8. The response of the Education Officer, to this communication, as contained in its letter dated 16th November, 2010, of the Education Officer, was that, if the petitioner was not possessing the requisite educational qualification for the post of Lab Assistant, at the time when he was so recruited, his services would either have to be dispensed with or he would have to be granted all financial benefits as per the rules.

9. On 20th May, 2011, the Education Officer issued a Memorandum to the School, directing it to place the case of the petitioner, for grant of ACP, before the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) under intimation to him. The School responded, stating that the DPC had, in fact, met on 23rd June, 2011, but did not find the petitioner suitable for being granted ACP benefits until he acquired the minimum educational qualifications for the post of Lab Assistant, which was „Intermediate with Science”. The petitioner, however, submits, in this writ petition, that this decision was never communicated to him.

10. In this scenario, the case of the petitioner, as ventilated in the writ petition and as urged before me by Mr. Ravi Dev Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the denial, to him, of the benefits of the ACP Scheme was ex-facie illegal.

11. The petitioner, it may be noted, superannuated on 31st July, 2012.

12. The School, in