USHA SAINI Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI
Click here to view full judgement.
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. -
(1.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the result of the DPC held on 17.2.2006 whereby the petitioner was declared not suitable for the post of Principal. The petitioner has also sought a direction to direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Principal and to pay to petitioner the pay and allowances with all other benefits with effect from 01.04.2004 The petitioner has also sought a direction to stay the selection process pursuant to the advertisement dated 08.04.2006. Before adverting to the rival contentions raised by counsel appearing for the parties, it would be appropriate to give narration of facts in brief.
(2.) In 1989, the petitioner joined respondent Nos.3 and 4 as TGT teacher and in July 1995, the petitioner became Vice Principal of the School. In November 2003, the post of Principal fell vacant and the respondent/school had advertised the said post in newspaper but later on they took a decision to hold DPC to select the Principal. The petitioner became Officiating Principal with effect from 01.04.2004 and in the DPC which was held on 20.01.2004, the petitioner alone was the sole candidate. The petitioner had filed the writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.7856/2004 so as to seek direction against the respondents for declaration of the result of the DPC which was held on 20.01.2004 In the reply, the respondent took the stand that the result of the DPC held on 20.01.2004 was deferred for want of certain documents. However, pursuant to interim direction granted by this Court in W.P.(C) No.7856/2004, the respondents had reconvened the fresh DPC on 09.06.2004 In this reconvened DPC, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the ACR grading of the petitioner had declined for the last two years and, therefore, the petitioner could not succeed to get selected on the post of Principal. In view of non-selection of the petitioner, the DPC recommended open method of selection and in such open selection the name of petitioner was also to be considered as departmental candidate. The petitioner has stated that before the meeting of the DPC held on 09.06.2004, an emergent meeting of the Managing Committee took place on 07.06.2004 wherein the decision was taken for composite method of selection. The minutes of this meeting dated 07.06.2004 were signed on 10.06.2004 and the decision in the DPC dated 09.06.2004 to hold composite selection for the post of Principal was in fact a decision taken prior in hand by the management of respondent No.3.
(3.) The petitioner feeling aggrieved with the outcome of the decision of DPC dated 09.06.2004 had filed the writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.15214/2004 and vide judgment dated 09.01.2006, this Court in W.P.(C) No.15214/2004 had given directions to the respondents to hold a fresh DPC after duly conveying to the Petitioner the ACRs for the period 2003-04 and 2004-05, in case there is a decline in the performance level of the petitioner. This Court had also directed in the said judgment to decide the representation of the petitioner, in response to the communication, intimating the said decline in the performance level and to ultimately hold the DPC within six weeks from the date of the judgment after considering the representation of the petitioner. The Court further directed that only in the event of decision of the DPC not finding any of the candidate suitable, then, it shall carry on the open selection process, wherein, the candidature of the petitioner would also be considered along with the other candidates. Pursuant to the said directions, the respondents No.3 and 4 had communicated the earlier ACR vide letter dated 23.01.2006. In reply the petitioner made a representation for correction of the ACR vide her representation dated 01.02.2006 and after considering the representation of the petitioner, the respondent No.3 vide their letter dated 14.02.2006 informed the petitioner that the 'Average' remarks given by the Reviewing Officer in the ACR for the year 2003-2004 were set aside. After the said rectification of the ACR of the petitioner, the DPC for the selection of the Principal was again held on 17.02.2006 in which the petitioner along with other five teachers from the same school appeared before the DPC on 17.02.2006. The petitioner, along with other candidates was interviewed on the same date and she was informed that the result of the DPC would be shortly communicated. Vide letter dated 28.03.2006, the petitioner was informed that her candidature for the post of Principal was rejected. Not only the petitioner, none of the other candidates could qualify to get selected on the said post. Resultantly, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were left with no option but to go for an open selection for which the respondents gave an advertisement in the newspaper dated 08.04.2006. Feeling aggrieved again, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition assailing the said decision of the respondents as arbitrary, illegal and mala fide.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.