Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
Sarita Tyagi & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Shaheed Raj Pal Dav Public School & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 12795 of 2021 & CM APPL. 25964 of 2022
Decided On : 30-05-2023
SENIOR-MOST PGT - SENIORITY LIST - UNCOMMUNICATED ACRs - PROMOTION TO PRINCIPAL - SELECTION POST - DPC - AUTONOMY - COMMUNICATION OF ACRs - ARBITRARINESS - ARTICLE 14 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - REVIEW DPC: 1. Petitioners, permanent/confirmed employees of the School with unblemished record, were senior-most PGTs in the School. Respondent No. 4, PGT (English) was transferred from another school to the present School on 12.07.1994 but was shown as being appointed on 10.07.1989 in order to give her seniority in the list. 2. Petitioners were informed vide letters dated 04.08.2021 and 09.08.2021 that DPC meeting for the post of Principal was scheduled on 11.08.2021 and they were directed to report for interview at 03:30 PM in the School premises. However, when Petitioners reached the School on the date and time fixed, they were never called for an interview and only Respondent No. 4 was interviewed by the DPC. 3. Petitioners were aggrieved by the impugned seniority list of PGTs and the selection of Respondent No. 4 to the post of Principal by the DPC. They filed a writ petition seeking setting aside of the impugned seniority list and a direction to the School to re-frame a correct seniority list in conformity with the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (Rules, 1973) and to re-constitute a fresh Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) and consider the Petitioners for promotion to the post of Principal. 4. The Court held that the impugned seniority list was bad in law, having been issued without inviting objections/representations from the concerned teachers, including the Petitioners. The Court also held that the DPC could not take into account uncommunicated ACRs with ‘Average’ gradings, which beyond a doubt was a downgrading from the other ACRs having an overall ‘Good’ grading. The Court directed the School to circulate the seniority list of PGTs and invite objections. It also directed the School to communicate the ACRs for the period 2015-2016 to 2019-2020 to the Petitioners, within three weeks from the date of the order. The Court further directed that it was open to the Petitioners to prefer representations against the ACRs within two weeks of receipt of the ACRs. The School was directed to thereafter take a considered decision in accordance with law on the representations, if any and needless to state, if there is upgradation in the ACR(s) of the Petitioners, a review DPC shall be convened by the School to consider the case of the Petitioners for promotion to the post of Principal along with the other senior-most PGTs, after finalisation of the seniority list and depending on the zone of consideration.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, permanent/confirmed employees of the School with unblemished record, were senior-most PGTs in the School. Respondent No. 4, PGT (English) was transferred from another school to the present School on 12.07.1994 but was shown as being appointed on 10.07.1989 in order to give her seniority in the list. Petitioners were informed vide letters dated 04.08.2021 and 09.08.2021 that DPC meeting for the post of Principal was scheduled on 11.08.2021 and they were directed to report for interview at 03:30 PM in the School premises. However, when Petitioners reached the School on the date and time fixed, they were never called for an interview and only Respondent No. 4 was interviewed by the DPC. Petitioners were aggrieved by the impugned seniority list of PGTs and the selection of Respondent No. 4 to the post of Principal by the DPC. They filed a writ petition seeking setting aside of the impugned seniority list and a direction to the School to re-frame a correct seniority list in conformity with the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (Rules, 1973) and to re-constitute a fresh Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) and consider the Petitioners for promotion to the post of Principal.
Finding of the Court:
1. The impugned seniority list was bad in law, having been issued without inviting objections/representations from the concerned teachers, including the Petitioners. 2. The DPC could not take into account uncommunicated ACRs with ‘Average’ gradings, which beyond a doubt was a downgrading from the other ACRs having an overall ‘Good’ grading.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned seniority list of PGTs was valid. 2. Whether the DPC could take into account uncommunicated ACRs with ‘Average’ gradings.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A seniority list must be circulated and objections invited before it is finalised. Failure to do so renders the seniority list bad in law. 2. Uncommunicated ACRs cannot be taken into account by a DPC to the prejudice of the concerned employee.
Final Decision: 1. The Court directed the School to circulate the seniority list of PGTs and invite objections. 2. The Court also directed the School to communicate the ACRs for the period 2015-2016 to 2019-2020 to the Petitioners, within three weeks from the date of the order. 3. The Court further directed that it was open to the Petitioners to prefer representations against the ACRs within two weeks of receipt of the ACRs. The School was directed to thereafter take a considered decision in accordance with law on the representations, if any and needless to state, if there is upgradation in the ACR(s) of the Petitioners, a review DPC shall be convened by the School to consider the case of the Petitioners for promotion to the post of Principal along with the other senior-most PGTs, after finalisation of the seniority list and depending on the zone of consideration.
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Singh, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioners seeking setting aside of the impugned seniority list of Post Graduate Teachers (`PGTs') in Shaheed Rajpal DAV Public School/Respondents No. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as the `School') with a direction to the School to re-frame a correct seniority list in conformity with the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the `Rules, 1973'). Writ of mandamus is sought for a direction to the School to re- constitute a fresh Departmental Promotion Committee (`DPC') and consider the Petitioners for promotion to the post of Principal.
2. Factual score as averred in the writ petition is that Petitioners are permanent/confirmed employees of the School with unblemished record. Petitioner No. 1 was appointed as PGT (Chemistry) on 01.08.1991 and Petitioner No. 2 as PGT (English) on 12.07.1993. Petitioners were senior-most PGTs in the School.
3. It is averred that a seniority list of PGTs was prepared by the School for the first time in 2020 and all PGTs including the Petitioners were made to sign in a column on the seniority list during a meeting held in the School premises, in acknowledgement of their particulars. A draft or tentative list was never circulated before that date and Petitioners were shocked and surprised to note that their junior namely, Ms. Vinita Kapoor/Respondent No. 4, PGT (English) was shown senior to them. Respondent No. 4 was transferred from Kulachi Hansraj Model School to the present School on 12.07.1994 but was shown as being appointed on 10.07.1989 in order to give her seniority in the list. Since Petitioners were appointed on 01.08.1991 and 12.07.1993 respectively and Respondent No. 4 was transferred to the School on 12.07.1994, Petitioners were senior to her and the seniority position shown in the list was incorrect.
4. Petitioners were informed vide letters dated 04.08.2021 and 09.08.2021 that DPC meeting for the post of Principal was scheduled on 11.08.2021 and they were directed to report for interview at 03:30 PM in the School premises. However, when Petitioners reached the School on the date and time fixed, they were never called for an interview and only Respondent No. 4 was interviewed by the DPC. In fact, there were two other teachers namely, Mrs. Suman Goel and Mrs. Rashmi Vaidya who were also invited but were not interviewed. Aggrieved by this, Petitioners made a representation dated 18.08.2021 to the School, pursuant to which they were called for discussions but the issue was never resolved and the representation was rejected vide impugned letter dated 28.08.2021. Petitioner No. 1 was also informed by the same letter that Respondent No. 4 had been validly and legally appointed as Principal in accordance with the established Rules and procedures.
5. Petitioners thereafter made a representation dated 31.08.2021 to Director of Education/Respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as the `DoE') requesting them to revoke/nullify the DPC proceedings but no response was received. A similar request was made on 01.09.2021 to the School but the response was in the negative. Petitioners also sought various documents including seniority list of PGTs, only to be informed that the seniority list cannot be furnished to them. A legal notice was also sent by the Petitioners but the grievances brought forth were not redressed and finally, the Petitioners approached this Court.
6. Contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners is that the impugned seniority list of PGTs is factually incorrect and legally untenable. Respondent No. 4 came to the School on transfer on 12.07.1994 whereas the Petitioners were appointed in the School prior to this date and are thus senior to her. In terms of para 10.2 of Chapter 10 titled `Transfer and Transfer TA, DA and Joining Time' of Administrative Manual of DAV College Managing Committee, seniority of an employee cannot be carried forward to another scho
AI
The mandatory review of ACRs by the Managing Committee, the right of the employee to file an appeal against adverse entries, and the court's power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to is....
Uncommunicated 'average' ACRs cannot adversely impact promotion under merit-cum-seniority; must be communicated for representation, else ignored as violative of Article 14 and natural justice princip....
Non-communication of entries in Annual Confidential Report to a public servant has civil consequences affecting his chances of promotion and getting other benefits. Non-communication of adverse ACRs ....
Denial of promotion based on non-communicated below benchmark ACRs violates Article 14, and such non-communication is arbitrary and illegal.
Non-communication of adverse ACR within the stipulated time period can adversely affect a government servant's career and should not form the basis for denying benefits, as established by legal princ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
