In a significant legal ruling, the Delhi High Court has resolved the seniority and promotion dispute between Lady Irwin Senior Secondary School and the Directorate of Education. The case involved a promotion recommendation for a TGT (Social Science) position, with the petitioner finally being granted promotion w.e.f., 21.12.2017. Learn more about the details of this case and its outcome. #HighCourt #LegalJudgement #PromotionCase
Facts
- The petitioner filed a writ petition after 4 TGT (Social Science) posts fell vacant in the school in 2014-15.
- The petitioner, having done her B.Com (Hons.) from Gargi College, Delhi University in 2001, was recommended for promotion by the DPC, pending DoE approval.
- Despite multiple representations to various authorities, including the DoE, her promotion was not approved until a review DPC recommended her promotion on 08.12.2017.
- The petitioner was formally promoted to the post of TGT (Social Science) on 21.12.2017 following approval by the Managing Committee.
- The petitioner joined the Lady Irwin Senior Secondary School in 2008 as an Assistant Teacher.
- The DPC held on 28.03.2015 considered the petitioner along with three other teachers for promotion, eventually recommending her case.
- In 2018, on 21.03, the petitioner was appointed to the concerned post after the DPC recommendation.
Arguments
- The petitioner’s case was recommended for promotion but no orders were passed by the DoE on the DPC conducted on 28.03.2015.
- The petitioner’s eligibility for seniority and promotion was not disqualified or disentitled, as no documents were shown on record by the respondent to prove otherwise.
- The review DPC held on 08.12.2017 found the petitioner eligible and granted promotion w.e.f., 21.12.2017.
- The Recruitment Rules were amended by corrigendum dated 30.03.2010, allowing candidates to be eligible if they studied the subject concerned as mentioned in the RRs during their graduation without a maximum marks requirement.
- Based on the corrigendum and DoPT OM dated 10.04.1989, the petitioner is entitled to be promoted w.e.f., 01.04.2015 with all consequential benefits.
- The petitioner’s promotion should take into account the amendment of 30.03.2010 and the subsequent review DPC decision favoring the petitioner.
- Minutes of the DPC meeting recommending the petitioner’s name was not approved by the DoE.
- The school is government-aided and receives 95% grant-in-aid from the DoE.
- The school may not have the capacity to pay any arrears, if any, as required by law.
Analysis
- The petitioner was found to be senior to two other teachers in the school.
- The Directorate of Education endorsed that the file should be processed according to the Recruitment Rules if senior officers agreed.
- The Directorate of Education returned the file to the school for a decision in line with the existing rules.
- The original records of the case were presented to the court by the DoE, confirming the petitioner’s seniority.
- The DPC conducted on 28.03.2015 was sent for approval to the Competent Authority but approval was not granted.
- The petitioner’s qualification met the requirements of the Recruitment Rules and notices issued.
- Notings on the Departmental Promotion Committee file indicated that the DPC should be conducted as per the Recruitment Rules of the government-aided school.
Decision
- Consequential benefits to be paid to the petitioner within eight weeks from today
- If payment is delayed, interest at the rate of 6% per annum shall be applicable
- The petition is disposed of with no costs
- The petitioner to be granted promotion with effect from 01.04.2015
- Consequential benefits to be granted notionally from 01.04.2015 and paid from 12.2017 onwards
Case Title: POOJA SHARMA Vs. THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION & ORS (2024:DHC:3848)
Case Number: W.P.(C)-4868/2019
