Promotion criteria for educational roles must comply with statutory Recruitment Rules, which cannot be overridden by Executive Instructions or Circulars.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. (ORAL)

1. This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 09.03.2018 passed by Respondent No. 4/ Departmental Promotion Committee appointing Respondent No. 9 as PGT (Hindi). Writ of Mandamus is also sought for a direction to Respondent No. 4 to appoint the Petitioner as PGT (Hindi) from 01.03.2015, the date on which the said post fell vacant since Petitioner is the senior most TGT in Respondent No. 3 School.

2. The factual matrix emerging from the writ petition is that Petitioner acquired B.A. degree in 1992 and B.Ed. degree in the year 1994. In the years 2002 and 2007, Petitioner obtained M.A. degrees in Sanskrit and Hindi, respectively. In 1997, after due selection, Petitioner was appointed as TGT (Sanskrit) in HMDAV Senior Secondary School/Respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as School) and had a teaching experience of almost 21 years to her credit on the date of filing of the writ petition.

3. On 01.03.2015, one post of PGT (Hindi) fell vacant and Petitioner being the senior most TGT, possessing requisite qualifications and experience, became entitled to be promoted on the said post. Concededly, as per the Recruitment Rules dated 04.11.1999 (hereinafter referred to as `1999 RRs'), for promotion to the post of PGT/Lecturer in any of the Modern Indian Language (MIL) i.e. Hindi/Sanskrit/Punjabi/Urdu, only TGT/Language Teachers in Sanskrit and in the MIL concerned, were eligible for consideration in their respective subjects.

4. Petitioner pleads that Respondent No. 1 modified the 1999 RRs vide Circular dated 22.09.2008 to the effect that any TGT (MIL) possessing Post-Graduation qualification in any of the MIL i.e. Hindi/Sanskrit/Punjabi/Urdu and also having 5 years regular service as TGT (MIL) in the Department, was eligible to be promoted as PGT in that subject. Illustratively, it was mentioned that if a TGT (Hindi) has qualification of post-graduation in Sanskrit, he/she could be promoted as PGT (Sanskrit). This Circular was never withdrawn and no other Circular has been issued overriding or superseding this Circular, which thus holds the field till date.

5. It is further averred that Respondent No. 9 was promoted as TGT (Hindi) on 29.02.2008 while Petitioner was appointed as TGT (Sanskrit) in 1997 and is over 11 years senior to Respondent No. 9. Keeping in mind the aforementioned position that Petitioner was qualified for the post and senior most, she made a representation on 08.12.2015 to the School, to consider her candidature for promotion to the post of PGT (Hindi), referring to the Circular dated 22.09.2008.

6. On 21.12.2015, DPC was convened by the School, wherein both the Petitioner and Respondent No. 9 were considered. DPC was of the view that there is a contradiction between the 1999 RRs and Circular dated 22.09.2008 and sought clarification from Respondent No. 1, deferring the meeting to another date. It is stated that vide communication dated 07.03.2016, Respondent No. 1 clarified that the 1999 RRs would hold the field and govern the promotion in question.

7. Not getting redressal of her grievances from the School, Petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court being W.P.(C) 2359/2016 laying a challenge therein to the communication dated 07.03.2016, primarily on the ground that 1999 RRs stood modified/amended by the Circular dated 22.09.2008 and since Petitioner was eligible for promotion as per the requisite criteria under the said Circular, her case should be expeditiously processed. Respondent No. 9 herein was implead