Disposed
Piraivanmathi P v. Directorate of Education & Ors.
Delhi HCW.P.(C)/918/2025
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
Page 1 of 4 $~91 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF…
What the court decided
AI extract
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.
$~91
PIRAIVANMATHI P .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Abhishek Jebaraj, Ms. A. Reyna Shruti and Ms. Tara Elizabeth Kurien, Advocates.
versus
DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Kartikeye Dang, Advocate for R-2 & 3.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
O R D E R
% 24.01.2025
Page 1 of 4
W.P.(C) 918/2025
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/01/2025 at 14:29:53
22.07.2024, noting the averments in the writ petition to the effect that the petitioner was supplied with copies of her ACRs/APARs for the years 2014-15 till 2020-21 only on 24.05.2022. In the absence of a comprehensive representation made by her against the adverse remarks/below benchmark grading, the petitioner was granted liberty to prefer such a representation, and respondent No. 2 was directed to communicate its decision thereupon within four weeks. The remedies available to the petitioner, in case of further grievances, were reserved. It was further provided that the petitioner’s case would be considered for promotion to the post of PGT (English) and for financial upgradation under MACPS-II in the event her ACRs/APARs were upgraded and/or adverse remarks expunged.
Page 2 of 4
W.P.(C) 918/2025
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/01/2025 at 14:29:53
31.08.2021, and also seeks to communicate adverse remarks. Although these two memoranda contained an opportunity to make a representation against the entries in the APAR, she has not availed the opportunity.
Page 3 of 4
W.P.(C) 918/2025
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/01/2025 at 14:29:53
her APARs are premature at this stage, as she has a remedy of appeal before the Directorate of Education [“DoE”] under Rule 112(7) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973. After disposal of the representation, if any, as aforesaid, she may exercise the appellate remedy before DoE within a period of four weeks.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
JANUARY 24, 2025 SS/AD/
Page 4 of 4
W.P.(C) 918/2025
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/01/2025 at 14:29:53
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's APARs for 2020-21 to 2022-23 should be supplied and her representations against adverse remarks considered before appellate remedy under Rule 112(7).
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Piraivanmathi P
Directorate of Education
Delhi Tamil Education Association
Prateek Jalan
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