Alpana Gautam v. Directorate of Education and Anr

JUDGMENT V. KAMESWARRAO, J

¶11hese two petitionseven though for differentreliefshave been filed by Teachers W/orkingin tlie same School and are contendersfor the post ofVice-Principal,as such bong interconnected,and Ms. Gagan Gandhi had soughther impleadmentin W.P.(C) 4215/2017and lunherthe learnedcounselfor the partiesduringthe hearingon July 10. 2017, nave statedthey have no objection,ifboth the petitionsare decidedtogether,the ^ame are being decidedvide this order. Ms. AlpanaGautam,petitionerin W.P.(C)No 4^15/2017has challengedacommunicationfrom the Dy. DirectorEducationZone-11 Govt. of NCT of Delhi to the Principalof the respondentNo.2 School conveyingthe AP.tC)No. 4i7'2017and connectedinatter Pgg^ jof11 )\a approval of the Competent Authority to hold a review DPC with regard to her promotionto the postofPGT (Pol.Science)from the dateofhercompletingmandatory five years of experience. It may be stated here, that Ms. Alpana Gautam was in fact promotedas PGT (Pol. Science)witheffectfrom March01, 1996,whichpromotionhas been contestedby Ms. Gagan Gandhi writ petitionerin W.P.(C)No. 417/2017on the groundshe couldnot have beengivenpromotionin relaxationofexperienceand as such she cannot be senior,which ultimatelyshall be relevantfor promotionto the post of Vice Principal. The primaryreliefsought by Ms. Gagan Gandhi is for adirectionto ^onvenethe DPC forpromotionto thepostofVicePrincipal. Facts in W.P.(C) No. 417/2017

¶2In this petition,the prayersprayedfor are as under:- -It is, therefore,mostrespectfullyprayedthat this Hon'hie Courtmay kindly be pleasedto issue a writ, order or directionin the natureof Mandamusor anyotherappropriatewrit, orderor directionand: a) DirectRespondentsto immediatelyconduct the meetingofthe DepartmentalPromotionCommitteeto considercaseofthe Petitioner for her with effectfrom 01.04.2015,promotion to the post of Vice Principal, with all consequential reliefs and benefits including consequentialsalary, allowances, arrears thereofwith interest (d), 10% per annum; b) pass anysuchfurtheror otherordersas this Hon'ble Courtmay deemfitandproperin thefactsandcircumstancesofthe caseto grant completereliefto thepetitioner." .P.(C)No. 417/2017and connectedmatter 2ofn

¶0It IS the case of the petitionerthat she was appointed as TGT (English) on November02, 1987 with the approvalof the Directorof Education. On January 01, 1993, Ms. Alpana Gautam, the daughter of Mr. Kali Charan Gautam, Additional DirectorofEducationwas appointedas TGT (SocialStudies/General)in the respondent No.2 School. It is her case, that Ms. AlpanaGautamgot promotedto the post ofPGT (Pol. Science)withouteven completingthe mandatoryfive years of regularservice in the grade. Uponinquiry,it was learntthatherpromotionwas made by givingrelaxation 4 in experienceby the CompetentAuthority. It is her case, that the then Vice Principal ^astakingPoliticalScienceclasses,as suchtherewas no requirementnor any vacancy for making promotionto PGT (Pol. Science), was in existence. It is her case that despitehaving29 years ofexperience,the respondentsare not conductingany DPC for promotionto the post of Vice Principaleven though,the said post is vacantsince April 01,2015. ^ Facts in W.PTCJNo. 4215/2017

¶4The prayersmade in this writpetitionare: - "It is therefore,most respectfullyprayedthat this Hon'ble Courtmay kindlybepleasedto issuea Writ, OrderorDirection(s) in the nature ofMandamusor any other appropriateWrit, Order or Direction(s) and 1) Direct that theImpugnedOrder dated 02.05.17/03-5/17as issuedby RespondentNo. 1 toRespondentNo.2 to conduct Review DPC with regard to the promotionof Petitioner for the post ofPGT (Pol. Sc.) immediately,to be Illegal, Illogical, Unconstitutional in light of the legitimate relaxation in experience approval already granted, by Director, DOE, Delhi, way back, on 14-05-1996for petitionerpromotion,for thepost ofPGT (Pol. Sc.). The Page3of11 said approval hold good, as the same has not been challenged. 2) The Impugned Order issued by the Directorate of Education, (Zone XI) bearing No.1754-58, dated

02.05.17/02-5-17forimmediatelyconducting,reviewDPC with regardto promotionofthe Petitionerfor thepost of PGT(Pol. Sc.) be quashed/struckdown/Set-aside,as the same is Biased/ Unfair/ Unjustified/ Unreasonableand Discriminatory,aspetitionerbelongto ScheduledCaste. 2) Direct Respondentsto produce all the relevantrecords, pertainingto petitionerDPC held on 29-2-1996along with approvalLetter dated May 14'\ 1996 as issued by RespondentNo.1 bearingNo. F.D.N. 49/ZXI/95/591. 4) Allowthe costofthis WritPetitionto thepetitioner. 5) Pass any such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem it fit and proper in the facts and circumstancesof the case, to grant complete relief to petitioner. "

¶5It is the case of Ms. Alpana Gautam that she was appointed as TOT (Social Science)on January 01, 1993. On February29, 1996, a DPC was held by respondent No.2 which tound her fit to be promotedas PGT (Pol. Science)by seekingrelaxationof 4 the Directorof Educationunder Rule 97 of the Delhi School EducationRules, 1973 beinga personbelongingto reservedcategory(SC). Itis averredon May 14, 1996,the Approval from Director of Education granting relaxationwith regard to petitioner's promotionto PGT (Pol. Science)was receivedby the respondentNo.2 School.

¶6It is her case that Ms. SushmaSrivastava,PGT (English)expiredon January03, 1997, which resultedin the promotionofMs. GaganGandhi,writpetitionerin W.P.(C) No. 417/2017 on Februar>' 12, 1997 as PGT (English). It is averred that owing to prolongedillness,Ms. ArchanaTyagi, Principalresignedfrom the post, which resulted Page4of11 n in the promotionof the Vice PrincipalMs. Sheela Rai to the post of Principaland the PGT to the post of Vice Principal. It is also averred in the writ petition, as per the seniority list of the PGT staff circulated by the respondent No.2 School, all the PGT staff Membersacceptedthe senioritypositionincludingMs. Gagan Gandhi. It appears, Ms. Alpana Gautam was shown above Ms. Gagan Gandhi. Since April 01, 2015, the post of Vice Principalis lying vacantand the petitionerwho is a permanentemployeeof respondent No.2 is holding the additional charge of Officiating Head of School of 4 respondentNo.2. The respondentNo.2 Schoolwas in the processofrecommendingthe ^petitioner'sname for promotionto the postofVice Principalas she is the seniormost PGT and belonging to SC category. It is averred that few vested persons including Ms. Gagan Gandhi got issued the illegal, unconstitutional, illogical, mala fide order dated May 2/3, 2017 sabotagingand derailingthe brightcareerprospectsof her (Ms. Alpana Gautam). * SUBMISSIONS;-

¶7Mr. Amit Trikha, the learned counsel for Ms. Alpana Gautam, apart from ®narratingthe facts as averredin the writpetitionwouldsubmitthatMs. AlpanaGautam was rightly given the promotionto PGT (Pol. Science),inasmuchas the Recruitment Rules vide Note-2 (page 82) contemplates,the grant of concessionsto the persons belongingto ScheduledCastes and ScheduledTribes shall be in accordancewith the orders issued by the Central Governmentfrom time to time. Accordingto him, the promotionwas pursuantto a DPC held on February29, 1996 when the Dy. Education Officerof Zone-11 was also present. He would submitthatthe DPC beingconsciousof Page 5of11 the fact that Ms. Alpana Gautam does not have the relevantexperiencehad obser\'ed that the ManagementCommitteeshould take relaxationfor Ms. Alpana Gautam from DirectorofEducationwithinthree monthsunderRule 97 ofthe Delhi SchoolEducation Rules. Mr. Trikha would also submitthat a communicationin that regard was sent to the Dy. Education Officer, Zone-11 on March 11, 1996 and pursuant thereto, a communicationdated May 14, 1996 was sent to the School,conveyingthe approvalof Directorof Educationwith regard to relaxationin experienceto Ms. Alpana Gautam,

¶4fGT (Social Science) for her promotionto the post ofLecturer(Social Science). In ^supportofhis submission,he woulddrawmy attentionto mnningpage 133 ofthe paper book, which is an opinion given by Consultant,wherein accordingto him, she has opined that the essential qualificationfor the post includes both essential academic qualificationas well as minimumqualifyingexperience. That apart,he would draw my attentionto compilationofthreedocumentsi.e instructionsofGovt.ofIndiawith regard ^ to relaxed standardsin departmentalcompetitive/qualifyingexaminations;Department of Personneland AdministrativeReformsOM's dated September05, 1975 and January ^^21, 1977 in supportofhis contentionthat relaxationin experiencecan be given to an SC/STcandidate. That apart,he would also rely on ajudgmentofthis Courtin the case reportedas 2003 (III) ADDelhi 429 Sushma Banga v. DelhiAdministrationand Ors to contend that the eligibilityrequirementfor promotionto the post of FGT is three years. In the end, it is his submissionthat before issuingthe impugnedcommunication dated May 02/03, 2017, the respondentshave not even issueda show causenoticeto the petitionercallingfor her replyon the proposedaction. \V.P.(C)No. 417/2017and connectedmatter Page6of11 A S-. Mr. V.K. Tandon.on the Cherhand, wouldsubmitthat Ms. Gagan Gandhi was appointedas TGT (English)on November02, 1987 ntuch beforeMs. AlpanaGautam. She was promotedas PGT(English)on Februa.^,2. 1997, He concedesto the factthat Ms. Gagan Gandhi was well below in the senioritypositionas PGT (English).He submittedin 2011, the then Principalresignedfrom her postpavingway for promotion of the then Vice Principalto the post of Principaland the PGT to the post of Vice Principal. If Ms.AlpanaGautam promotionis shiftedto alater date than March 01, . 1996coincidingthe periodofeligibilityoffive yearsthenMs. GaganGandhihis client ^wouldbe seniorto Ms. AlpanaGautamand shall be eligiblefor VicePrincipal. He has drawn my attention to various representationsmade by Ms. Gagan Gandhi since beginningwherein Ms. Gagan Gandhi has all throughoutbeen highlightingthe illegal manner in which Ms. Alpana Gautam had been given the promotion to PGT (Pol. Science). He would also draw my attentionto an inquiryconductedby the Directorate ^ot Educationwherein,certainconclusionshave been arrivedat, inasmuchas the letter dated May 14, 1996 on which reliancehas been placedby Ms. AlpanaGautam said to ^e sent by the Dy. EducationOfficer,Zone-11 underdispatchno. 591 wasafabricated letteras underthe said dispatchnumber,aletterwas sent by DDE (NW) on September 16, 1996 on the rationalizationof stream of GBSSS No.II, Shakurpurand GBSSS No.Ill, Shakurpur. He also states, that there was only one dispatch registerand the dispatch register does not reveal that such a communicationhas been sent to the Manager of the respondent No.2 School. It is his submission, that even initial appointmentof Ms. AlpanaGautam was illegalas it transpiredthat the approvalofthe Pggg7ofu Directorof Educationofher appointmentis also not availablein Zone-11. In the end, he states, that the petitionerhaving worked for 29 years, should have the benefitof a higher status at least, when she retires on attaining the age of superannuationon September 30, 2017 and in that regard, he presses for the relief, that the DPC be convenedfor the post ofVice Principaland considerher case w.e.fApril 1, 2015, when the post of Vice Principalbecamevacant.

¶7Mr. Anuj Aggarwal,learnedcounselfor the DirectorateofEducation-respondent No.l would reiterate the stand taken by the Directoratein its counter affidavit in ^W.P.(C) No. 417/2017, inasmuch as an inquiry was initiated by the Directorateof Education on the complaintof Ms. Gagan Gandhi regarding the promotion of Ms. Alpana Gautam and information and relevant documents were sought from the respondent No.2 School. The Directorate was not fully satisfied with the information providedbythe respondentNo.2 School. He states,that the file for approvalof the then ^ Directorof Education seeking relaxationof experienceissued to Ms. Alpana Gautam, TGT (General Science) to the post of PGT (Pol. Science) of the respondentNo. 2 ^School is not traceableat District(N/W-B) of Directorateof Education and a letter datedMarch 15, 2017 was uploadedon MIS of respondentNo.l inthat regard. He also states, that on inquiry conducted by respondent No.l, it was concluded that the provisionsofRule 97 and Rule 103 do not empowerthe Directorof Educationto grant any relaxationin required experiencefor promotionto a higher post as they specially speakofessentialqualificationor minimumqualificationonly. It is in this background a decision has been taken to reconsiderthe promotion of Ms. Alpana Gautam by Page 8of 11 ..oldmgareview DPC and her eligibilityfor promotionmay be consideredonly from the dateofcompletingthe mandatoryfive yearsofexperienceas TGT. In otherwords, he states,no relaxationofexperiencecan be granted.

¶10Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the issue which arises for considerationis, whetherMs. AlpanaGautamcouldhave been promotedto the postof POT (Pol. Science)beforecompletingfive years of regularservicein the grade. Mr. Trikhahad reliedupon the note-2at page 82 ofthe W.P.(C)No. 4215/2017. Sufficeto ' state,the said noteonly refersto the fact that the reservationsand the otherconcessions ||?quiredto be provided for ScheduledCastes and ScheduledTribes in terms of the ordersissuedby CentralGovt. from time to time shall hold good. Drawingsustenance from this note, he would rely upon the instructionsissued by DoP&T referredabove, with regard to relaxation of standards in departmental competitive./qualifying examinationdated January21, 1977; OM dated September05, 1975. Sufficeto state, ^ihe formerOM relatesto relaxationofstandardsin departmentalcompetitive/qualifying examinationdoes not mean relaxationof experiencefor promotion. The OM has no ipDplicability. That apart, the OM dated September05, 1975 was specificto the direct recruitment,which is not the case in hand. Even his plea, relyingupon thejudgmentof this Court in Sushma Banga (supra) to contend that the eligibilitycondition for promotion to the post of PGT is three years, is contrary to the RecruitmentRules annexed by Ms. Alpana Gautam at page 81-82 of her writ petition, which clearly stipulatesfive years ofregularservicein grade is the eligibilityrequirementfor being Page9of11 consideredfor promotion. That apart,I find this argumentis in desperationcontraryto whathas been argued by Mr. Trikha as noted above.

¶11I agree with the submissionmade by Mr. Anuj Aggarwal that Rule 97 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 does not stipulate relaxation of experience, requiredto be possessedby acandidatefor promotionto PGT. In viewofmy aforesaid conclusion,this Court need not go into the submissionsmade by Mr. Trikha that the representativeofthe DirectorateofEducationwas presentin the DPC held on February 29, 1996 and has also signed the proceedings. So also, his reliance on the H^iommunicationdatedMarch 11, 1996 sentby the respondentNo.2 Schoolseekinggrant ol relaxationin favour of Ms. Alpana Gautam and also on the alleged communication dated 14.5.1996 from the District Education Officer purporting to convey the approval of the Director of Education with regard to relaxation of experience in favour of Ms. Alpana Gautam. I only note, that it is the submission of Mr. Tandon that the " documents are fabricated. That apart, the Directorate of Education respondent No. 1 herein has filed an affidavit stating that the record is not available. ^^2. Insofar as the submission of Mr. Trikha that the promotion of Ms. Alpana Gautam is sought to be reviewed after 21 years is concerned, in view of my aforesaid finding that Ms. Alpana Gautam being not entitled to any relaxation in experience and could not have been given promotion contrary to the Rules, the said promotion cannot be legalized/confirmed only because of the passage of time, the plea is rejected. I only note, the stand of the Director of Education in the impugned communication dated May 2/3, 2017 calling upon the School to consider the case of Ms. Alpana Gautam on W.P.(C) No. 417/2017 and connected matter completionoffive yearsofservice,wouldmeanthatthe considerationofherpromotion would be deferredby two years. Such an actionis in conformitywith the Rules,which admittedlyhave been framed by the Administratorunder the Delhi School Education Act, which has astatutoryforce. Moreover,sincethis Courthas held that relaxationin experiencecould not have been grantedin favour of Ms. Alpana Gautam,the plea of Mr. Trikhathat no show cause notice was issuedbeforethe impugnedcommunication was sent,wouldbe an academicexerciseand the same is rejected. ' 13. In viewofmy discussionabove,the writpetitionbeingW.P.(C)No. 4215/2017is ^ismissed. The respondentNo.2 shall act in accordancewith the directivesof the respondentNo.l in the communicationdated May 02/03, 2017. Pursuantthereto,they shall also hold DPC for promotionto the post ofVice Principalconsideringall eligible personswith effect from the date of this order in accordancewith the Rules. This would dispose of the W.P.(C) No. 417/2017. No costs. CM No. 1927/2017 (for direction^ in W.PTO 417/2017 CM Nos. 18456/2017 (for stay), CM No. 20438/2017 (for impleadment) & 20439/2017(for vacation of stay) in W.PTC) 4215/2017 ^ Dismissed as infructuous. SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 ak V. KAMESWAR RAO, J Page 11 of11

+ •> r' V, IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judsment reserved on: September 19. 2017 Judsment delivered on: September 25. 2017 W.P.(C)4215/2017,CMNos. 18456/2017,20438-20439/2017 ALPANA GAUTAM Petitioner Through: Mr. AmitTrikha,Adv. versus DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION AND ANR Respondent Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal,ASC (GNCTD) CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO. .T Fororders,see W.P.(C)NpM^lGkM.7/2017. SE#EMBER25.2017/ak li&b »™SWARRAO,J ii, -7 f IIPPJ" -9.?. 60°//? - fifsh pM <^'^1 - '"/p Vo 'ssh'^h^ Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. + # IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ^^ Judsmentreservedon:September19^7017 Judsment delivered on: September 2 7017 W.P.(C)417/2017,CM No. 1927/2017 W.P.(C)4215/2017,CMNos. 18456/2017,20438-20439/2017 GAGAN GANDHI ALP ANA GAUTAM Petitioner Through. Mr. V.K. Tandon,Adv. with Mr. PardeepKumar,Advs. (W.P.(C)No 417/2017) Mr. AmitTrikha,Adv. (W.P.(C)No 4215/2017) versus DIRECTORATEOF EDUCATIONAND ANR Respondent Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal,ASC (GNCTD) CORAM: HON'BLEMR JUSTICEV. IC4MESWARR40