Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 17545/2024, CM APPL. 74715-16/2024, 74757/2024
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Petitioners
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC
Through:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
JUDGMENT
19.12.2024 C. HARI SHANKAR. J
1. In this case, the respondent was considered for promotion to the post of Post Graduate Teacher[1], first by a Departmental Promotion Committee[2] DPC convened on 27 June 2006 and, later, by a second DPC which was convened on 13 October 2006. The DPC which was convened on 27 June 2006 did not promote him as PGT on the sole ground that the qualification of SAV, which was possessed by him, was not one of the prescribed qualifications for the post of PGT, which included B.Ed. PGT
2. The Tribunal notes that, on the basis of the very same qualification, the respondent was promoted as PGT four months later by the DPC held on 13 October 2006. The impugned order also notes that, in the counter affidavit filed by the petitioners, as the respondents, before the Tribunal, there is a specific acknowledgment by the respondents that the DPC had regarded the qualification of SAV as equivalent to the qualification of B.Ed and on that basis the respondent was promoted by the DPC on 13 October 2006. The Tribunal also notes that if the qualification of SAV was regarded as equivalent to the qualification of B.Ed. by the DPC which convened on 13 October 2006, there could be no justification for rejecting his entitlement for promotion by the earlier DPC which convened on 27 June 2006 on the sole ground that the respondent possessed only the qualification of SAV.
3. We deem it appropriate to reproduce the relevant paragraphs of the minutes of the DPC which was convened on 27 June 2006 and the second DPC which was convened on 13 October 2006: Para 10 of DPC minutes dated 27 June 2006: “10. The DPC considered the cases of promotion of the following teachers to the post of PGT and in view of the fact that they possess a certificate in LT, OT or SAV which is not as per RRs (as per RRs the qualification is a degree/diploma in training/Education), the DPC did not find them eligible for promotion to the post of PGT mentioned against each.
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Sl. Name Desg. Category Snty DOB Qualifi Being │ │ No. & No -cation consider │ │ Desgn. -ed for │ │ promoti- │ │ on in │ │ subject │ ├────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 1 Shyam TGT SC 2840 18/8/58 LT Econom │ │ Signature Not Verified │ │ Digitally Signed By:AJIT │ │ KUMAR WP(C) 17545/2024 Page 2 of 6 │ │ Sunder (S.Sc) -ics │ │ 2 Vikram TGT ST 2334 01/9/67 SAV Hindi │ │ (Hindi) │ │ 3 Ami TGT ST 2985 10/6/46 SAV History │ │ Chand (S.Sc) │ │ 4 VS TGT Gen 139A 10/4/57 OT Sanskrit │ │ Yadav (Skt) │ │ 5 Brij Pal TGT SC 2246 15/01/6 LT Pol.Sc │ │ Singh 0 │ │ 6 Janak TGT Gen 3017 2/2/58 SAV Commer │ │ (Eng) -ce │ │ 7 Gulsh- TGT Gen 1946 20/4/48 Witho- Math │ │ an (Math) ut │ │ Kaur B.Ed. │ │ Para 4 of DPC minutes dated 13 October 2006: │ │ “4. The DPC considered the cases of promotion of teachers to │ │ the post of PGT who possess a SAV certificate issued by the │ │ Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi instead of B.Ed. or its │ │ equivalent which is pre-requisite as per RRs and recommends the │ │ promotion of such teachers who possess SAV certificate instead │ │ B.Ed. or its equivalent, as the SAV certificate being considered │ │ equivalent to B.Ed. in case of promotion of teachers from Asst. │ │ Teacher to TGT. The DPC also decided that cases of similarly │ │ placed teachers who were not recommended for promotion in the │ │ previous DPC held on 27.06.2006 be placed in the next DPC for │ │ consideration.” │ │ 4. The respondent was promoted as PGT w.e.f. 17 November │ │ 2006 on the basis of the recommendation of the second DPC held on │ │ 13 October 2006. │ │ 5. To a query from the Court as to why the first DPC regarded the │ │ respondent as not having possessed the requisite educational │ │ qualifications, whereas the second DPC treated the qualification of │ │ SAV as equivalent to that of B.Ed., Mr. Singh’s submission is that the │ │ decision of the second DPC was based on a clarification obtained from │ │ the Department of Education. Clearly, the respondent would be │ │ entitled to the benefit of the said clarification even in the case of the │ │ Signature Not Verified │ │ Digitally Signed By:AJIT │ │ KUMAR WP(C) 17545/2024 Page 3 of 6 │ └────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.