A writ petition challenging the appointment of a respondent as Vice Principal on grounds of lack of qualifications and violation of seniority was dismissed. The court held selection applies over automatic promotion and recognized Physical Education Teachers as equivalent to T.G.T.
The writ petition was dismissed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**
% 7th April, 2015
SYED MOHD. AKHTAR
..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Shiprea Ghose, Advocate with Ms. Laxmi Shashtri, Advocate.
Versus
THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, MAZHARUL ISLAM SECONDARY SCHOOL AND ORS. .... Respondents Through: Ms. Latika Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 to 5.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
to be appointed to the post of Vice Principal of the School by setting aside the appointment of the respondent no.3/Sh. Mushtaq Begg as a Vice Principal of the School in terms of the minutes of the Departmental
WP(C) 4755/2001 Page 1 of 16
Promotion Committee (DPC) of the School dated 30.5.2001 and confirmed by the minutes of the Managing Committee of the School on 31.5.2001. In essence, the petitioner claims that he and not the respondent no.3 ought to have been appointed as the Vice Principal of the School and the minutes of the DPC dated 30.5.2001 be quashed.
the post of Vice Principal of Government aided school, Mazharul Islam Secondary School being a government aided school. The relevant recruitment rule for appointment to the post of Vice Principal at the relevant time in the year 2001 reads as under:-
“ RECRUITMENT RULES FOR THE POST OF VICE PRINCIAPL WORKING IN THE GOVERNMENT AIDED SCHOOLS AND
WP(C) 4755/2001 Page 2 of 16
RECOGNIZED SCHOOLS IN THE UNION TERRITORY OF DELHI.
| 1. | Name of the post | Vice-Principal |
|---|---|---|
| 2. | Scale of Pay | Rs.650-30-710-35-810-EB-35-880-40-1000- EB-1200 |
| 3. | Whether selection or non-selection |
Selection |
| 4. | Age limit for | a. Not exceeding 45 years relaxable for a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes. b. Relaxable to the candidates belonging to the same schools. |
| 5. | Educational Qualification |
Essential : a. Master’s Degreewith atleast second Division from a recognized University or equivalent. Condition of Second Division relaxable in case of candidates belonging to the same school and also in case of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. b. Degree in Teaching/Education from a recognized University or equivalent. c. 10 years experience of teaching as TGT or 5 year experience of teaching as PGT. DESIRABLE |
| (i) Experience in administrative charge of a recognized High/Sr. Sec. School/Intermediate College. (ii) Doctorate Degree. (iii) M. Ed. Degree from a recogd. University |
||
| 6. | Whether age and Educational qualifications prescribed for direct recruitments will apply in the case of promotion. |
(i) Age = No (ii) Qualification= Yes except as indicated in Col. No.5. |
WP(C) 4755/2001 Page 3 of 16
| 7. | Period of Probation | One year |
|---|---|---|
| 8. | Method of rectt. | By promotion, failing which by direct rectt. |
| 9. | In case of rectt. By promotion/deputation, transfer, grades from which promotion/deputation/ transfer to be made |
Promotion out of i) PGT/HM of the same school with at least 5 years experience as PGT/HM. ii) PGTs with 10 years experience as TGT in cases of Sec. Schools. Note : Competent Authority may relax the essential Qualifications in exceptional cases of the candidates of the same school after recording reasons therefor. |
| 10. | If a Selection Committee exists what is its composition. |
The Selection Committee prescribed under the Delhi Education Act and Rules. ” |
respect to its para 9 whereby the eligibility criteria of persons who are to be promoted was changed, and which is by the notification of the Directorate of Education dated 29.1.1991 and which reads as under:-
NOTIFICATION
In exercise of the powers conferred vide Sec. 8(1) and Section 13 of Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (18 of 1973) read with rule 100 of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 made under the said Act, the Administrator of Delhi hereby makes the following amendment in the Schedule annexed to this Administration’s notification No.F32/1/84/Gen/78-80/3721-4161 dated 25.2.80 containing rules regarding the method of recruitment and qualification necessary for
WP(C) 4755/2001 Page 4 of 16
appointment to the post of Vice-Principal in Recognized Private Schools including unaided Minority schools in Delhi, namely:-
AMENDMENT
In the said Schedule, for the existing entries under Column 9 (In case of Rectt. by promotion/deputation transfer, grades from which promotion/deputation/transfer to be made), the following shall be substituted, namely:-
Column 9 Promotion out of
i) PGT/HM of the same school with atleast 5 years experience as PGT/HM.
ii) TGT’s/Lang-Tr’s with 10 years experience as TGT/Lang. Tr. In case of Sec. School.
By order and in the name of the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi
Sd/-
(V.P. SURI)
SPECIAL SECRETARY (EDUCATION) DELHI ADMINISTRATION: DELHI
No.F.32/1/84/Gen/91/98-400 Dated, the 29 Jan. 1991
Copy forwarded to:-
WP(C) 4755/2001 Page 5 of 16
(V.P. SURI) SPECIAL SECRETARY (EDUCATION) DELHI ADMINISTRATION: DELHI”
6(i) Though the respondent no.3 and the School have in their counter affidavits disputed the seniority of the petitioner, even for the sake of argument if we take the petitioner as senior to the respondent no.3, mere
WP(C) 4755/2001 Page 6 of 16
seniority in my opinion will not entitle the petitioner to be automatically promoted to the post of Vice Principal inasmuch as para 3 of the recruitment rule is very clear that appointment is by selection. No doubt, the post is a promotion post i.e the feeding cadre to the post of Vice Principal would be existing employees of the School, but yet out of the eligible candidates who satisfy the eligibility criteria prescribed in paras 5 and 9 of the recruitment rule, the person to be appointed as Vice Principal will be the one who is selected out of the eligible candidates inasmuch as appointment is by selection in terms of para 3 of the recruitment rule. Petitioner therefore is not justified in contending that appointment is automatically by promotion and not by selection. In fact, para 10 of the recruitment rule states that the selection committee will be in terms of the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973. Therefore, I reject the argument urged on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner being the senior most employee of the School was automatically entitled to be appointed as a Vice Principal.
(ii) Reliance is placed by the petitioner upon the judgment of a learned Single Bench of this Court in the case of Satya Prakash Gupta (supra) to canvass that the post in question is a promotion post and not a selection post, however, the judgment in the case of Satya Prakash Gupta (supra) will not apply because the said judgment deals with appointment to WP(C) 4755/2001 Page 7 of 16
the post of Principal and not the Vice Principal and the relevant recruitment
rule for the post of Vice Principal of aided schools which has been reproduced above shows that the appointment as a Vice Principal is by selection and not by promotion.
not have the necessary qualifications, it is necessary at this stage to
reproduce the minutes of the DPC dated 30.5.2001 and the same read as under:-
“Minutes of the meeting of D.P.C. to fill up the post of Vice Principal of Mazharul Islam Sec. School, Farash Khana, Delhi
A meeting of D.P.C. duly constituted in provision of Rule 96 of DSER and Act 1973 was held on 30.5.2001 at 11.00 A.M. in the Chamber of D.D.E. (Central) under the Chairmanship of Mr. Mohd. Haneef, Chairman of the Managing Committee, to fill up the vacant post of Vice Principal as per direction of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case No.CWP 6536/99 Shri Abdul Rehman V/s Director of Education and others dated 1.5.2001.
The following members were present:-
The secretary revealed in the meeting that the post of Vice Principal has been lying vacant in the school since 1.3.97 which was caused due to the retirement of Mr. P.A.Khan. He stressed that THIS INSTITUTION IS RUNNING UNDER A MUSLIM MINORITY
WP(C) 4755/2001 Page 8 of 16
MANAGEMENT. The seniority list of eligible teachers ACR for the last five years and results for the last five years, work and conduct report, synopsis of ACRs and Vigilance before the D.P.C. by the Secretary.
The Secretary of the school informed that a chance was given to Mr. S.M. Akhtar T.G.T. and Mr. Abdul Rehman, T.G.T. to sign the seniority list as per decision taken unanimously by the D.P.C. held on 10.4.2001 vide letter No. 49 & 50 dated 17.4.2001. Both the teachers have submitted their representations regarding the seniority statements. The representations were considered in the meeting of the Managing Committee and were not found satisfactory and self-explanatory. The Managing Committee unanimously resolved that the seniority list placed in the last meeting of D.P.C. for the post of Vice Principal held on 10.4.2001 will remain unchanged as such.
The Secretary of the School clarified the following points in the meeting.
WP(C) 4755/2001 Page 9 of 16
promotion of P.E.T. This is, therefore, very discriminatory and should be applied to aided Schools also.
The Managing Committee is of the firm opinion, on the basis of meritorious services rendered by Mr. Mushtaq Begg as officiating Vice Principal and being a senior most teacher of the school. The D.P.C. unanimously recommended to promote Mr. Mushtaq Begg P.E.T. to the post of Vice Principal in the present circumstances as it does not appear to be in contravention of rules, with immediate effect in the time scale of Rs. 7500-12000 subject to the approval of the Director of Education.
The Meeting ended with a vote of thanks to the Chair.
Sd/Sd/Sd/Mohd. Haneef Dr. M.C. Mathur Mrs. T.D. Tyagi Chairman Addl. D.E. (AE) D.D.E. Mazharul Islam (DE’s nominee) Sec. School Sd/Dr. Maulana M.F. Wasifi Secretary Masharul Islam Sec. School.”
8(i) The aforesaid minutes dated 30.5.2001 show that the respondent no.3 has been taken to have qualification of B.Ed inasmuch as the degree of Moallim-E-Urdu has been recognized by the Directorate of Education as equivalent to B.Ed vide its letter dated 28.4.1986. I have seen this letter dated 28.4.1986 which has been filed by the petitioner himself as Annexure P-38 and this letter of the Directorate of Education clearly states that Moallim-E-Urdu is considered equivalent to B.Ed by the Directorate of Education. Once that is so, the contention of the petitioner is not correct that
WP(C) 4755/2001 Page 10 of 16
the respondent no.3 did not have the qualification of the B.Ed for being considered for appointment as the Vice Principal of the School.
(ii) The second aspect with respect to lack of qualification of the respondent no.3 was that respondent no.3 was a Physical Education Teacher and not a T.G.T and hence he could not have been considered for appointment to the post of Vice Principal in terms of the recruitment rule which states that a person has to be either a P.G.T or a T.G.T. Even this argument urged on behalf of the petitioner is without any merit inasmuch as though the Director of Education had initially filed its affidavit dated 31.8.2006 stating that a Physical Education Teacher could not be appointed as a Vice Principal of an aided school however subsequently an additional affidavit was filed on behalf of the Directorate of Education by Mrs. Abha Joshi, Deputy Director in the Directorate of Education dated 15.12.2009 and this affidavit categorically states that a Physical Education Teacher is capable of being appointed as a Vice Principal and a Physical Education Teacher has to be taken as a T.G.T. That a Physical Education Teacher is to be taken as a T.G.T is found in the circular of the Directorate of Education
dated 9.1.2001 wherein it is stated in para 3 that the posts of Physical Education Teachers in schools are analogous to the T.G.T category. In view of the categorical language of this circular, it does not lie in the mouth WP(C) 4755/2001 Page 11 of 16
of the petitioner to urge that respondent no.3 cannot be considered as a T.G.T teacher. I may also state that respondent no.3 has filed the letter of the Directorate of Education dated 7.6.2006 and which letter is a response to an RTI application showing that as many as ten persons were appointed as Vice Principals of the Schools and such persons were either Physical Education Teachers or drawing teachers or music teachers. The detailed chart in this regard is contained as an annexure to the letter of the Directorate of Education dated 7.6.2006 and the same is as under:-
“The Following Physical Education Teachers, Music Teachers and Drawing Teachers have been promoted to the post of vice Principals and Principal in the following Govt. Aided Schools as per the record of Directorate of Education, Delhi (Through RTI)
| S.No. | Name of the School |
Designation | Promoted as |
Zone | District |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Salwan Boys Sr. Sec. School, Rajender Nagar, New Delhi |
PET | Vice Principal |
28 | Central |
| 02 | Kasaturba Balika Vidyalaya, Ishwar Nagar, New Delhi |
PET | Vice Principal |
25 | South |
| 03 | S.B. Mills Sr. Sec. School Shivaji Marg, New Delhi |
PET | Vice Principal and Later on Principal |
16 | West |
| 04 | Mazharul Islam Sec. School, |
PET | Vice | 27 | Central |
WP(C) 4755/2001 Page 12 of 16
| Farash Khana, Delhi |
Principal | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05 | DAV Sr. Sec. School, Jung Pura, New Delhi |
Drawing Teacher |
Vice Principal |
24 | South |
| 06 | SRSD Sr. Sec. School, Lajpat Nagar IV, New Delhi |
Drawing Teacher |
Vice Principal |
25 | South |
| 07 | G.D. Soni DAV Sr. Sec. School, Pusa Road |
Drawing Teacher |
Vice Principal |
28 | Central |
| 08 | Lady Irwin Girls Sr. Sec. School, Canning Road, New Delhi |
Music Teacher |
Vice Principal |
26 | South |
| 09 | R A Geeta Co- Ed. Sr. Sec. School, Shanker Nagar, Delhi |
Music Teacher |
Vice Principal |
1 | East |
| 10 | Geeta Sr. Sec. School, Sultan Puri, Jalebi Chowk, Delhi |
Music Teacher |
Vice Principal |
13 | North West B ” |
9. Therefore, merely because the Directorate of Education had
firstly filed a wrong affidavit, and which however was corrected in terms of the subsequent affidavit, shows that there was no bar in a Physical Education
Teacher being appointed as a Vice Principal of a government aided school. I
therefore hold that respondent no.3 did not lack the qualifications for being
WP(C) 4755/2001 Page 13 of 16
appointed as the Vice Principal of the School inasmuch as he had the necessary qualification of a B.Ed degree and also was treated as equivalent to a T.G.T.
not on 30.5.2001 which is the date of the minutes of the DPC.
the DPC dated 30.5.2001 are without any force. Firstly, the vague allegation of bias cannot help the petitioner in any manner inasmuch as allegation of bias is a very serious aspect and which has to be established to the complete satisfaction of the Court and simple averment of bias without any proof in
my opinion cannot be accepted by the Court to hold that in fact there was a bias. Also, besides the Chairman there were two other members in the Managing Committee including the nominee of the Director of Education. Of course, I may at this stage, state that since the School is a minority WP(C) 4755/2001 Page 14 of 16
school, in fact, there was no need of even the presence of the nominee of the Director of Education and this has been so held by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Queen Mary’s School thru its Principal Vs. U.O.I 185 (2011) DLT 168. The judgment in the case of Queen Mary’s School thru its principal (supra) has been followed by this Court in the case of St. Anthonys Girls Sr. Sec. School through Its Manager & Anr. Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 205 (2013) DLT 744. Therefore, neither the argument of any bias has any strength nor can it be argued that anything will turn upon the nominee of the Director of Education signing the minutes on 4.6.2001. In fact, the later argument is also misconceived because the date of signatures of the nominee of the Director of Education would be 4.6.2001 inasmuch as minutes of the meeting would have taken time to prepare and after preparation the same would have been signed by the nominee of the Director of Education on 4.6.2001, however, mere giving the date below the signatures as 4.6.2001 cannot mean that DPC was not held on 30.5.2001 inasmuch as the first page of the DPC and which has been reproduced above shows that presence of Mrs. T.D. Tyagi, the nominee of the Director of Education and who has subsequently signed on page 3 giving the date as 4.6.2001 i.e Mrs. T.D. Tyagi was present when the DPC was held on 30.5.2001 but she signed the same when the minutes were WP(C) 4755/2001 Page 15 of 16
ultimately put up to her after preparation on 4.6.2001. Therefore, even the argument of the petitioner that the nominee of the Director of Education was
not present on 30.5.2001 is a factually misconceived argument and is rejected.
School in appointing the respondent no.3 as the Vice Principal of the School. I may note that both the petitioner and the respondent no.3 in the meanwhile
have retired long back from the School and the arguments in this case on behalf of the petitioner were confined on the aspect that if the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as the Vice Principal then for the period from 2001 to 2010; when the petitioner retired; petitioner would be entitled to get monetary emoluments of the post of Vice Principal.
APRIL 07, 2015 Ne
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
WP(C) 4755/2001 Page 16 of 16
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an employee with seniority is automatically entitled to promotion to the post of Vice Principal or selection applies under the recruitment rules.
Whether a Physical Education Teacher qualifies as a T.G.T. for the post of Vice Principal in government aided schools.
Whether the selection process of the Departmental Promotion Committee was vitiated by bias or irregularities in the signing of minutes.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satya Prakash GuptaDistinguished¶53
Satya Prakash Gupta (Shri) Vs. Managing Committee, Ramjas Higher Secondary School No.1 & Ors. 2011 II AD (Delhi) 692.
Queen Mary's SchoolFollowed¶109
Queen Mary's School thru its Principal Vs. U.O.I 185 (2011) DLT 168. · Who else cites this
St. Anthonys Girls Sr. Sec. SchoolFollowed¶109
St. Anthonys Girls Sr. Sec. School through Its Manager & Anr. Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 205 (2013) DLT 744. · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SYED MOHD. AKHTAR
THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, MAZHARUL ISLAM SECONDARY SCHOOL AND ORS.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
