IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision : January 8th , 2008 WP(C) No.8756/2007 # Shri Sachey Singh ….… PETITIONER ! Through: Mr.K.C. Mittal, Advocate Versus $ Director of Education & Others ......... RESPONDENTS ^ Through : Mr.Mukesh Gupta, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 2. CORAM :- * HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may YES be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported NO in the Digest? ANIL KUMAR, J. (Oral) * 1. The petitioner has challenged the promotion of the respondent No.4 alleging that it is on the basis of seniority list and not on the merit and has sought quashing of the promotion of respondent No.4. The petitioner has also sought re-consideration of petitioner as per rules and direction to be appointed to the post of Vice Principal with all consequential benefits as he had been acting as Vice Principal. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a TGT Teacher in Hindi in 1977 WP(C) No.8756/2007 Page 1 of 5 and he has been working as TGT and thereafter petitioner completed his M.A. in the year 1986. 3. According to the Principal, Vice Principal of the school, Mr.Mahender Singh, was due to retire on 31st January, 2007 and the Deputy Director, respondent No.2, had directed him to handover the charge of the school to the respondent No.4. It seems that charge was, however, handed over by the outgoing Vice Principal to the petitioner on 31st January, 2007 and was not handed over to respondent No.4. 4. The petitioner though was not entitled to take over the charge, however, he accepted the charge from the outgoing Vice Principal and continued as a Vice Principal. The post of Vice Principal is to be filed according to the recruitment rules of promotion failing upon by direct recruitment and for promotion the PGT/HM of the same school with at least five years experience come under the zone of consideration. 5. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.3 issued a number of memos to the petitioner to hand over the charge of the said school and to hand over the ACRs of petitioner and other teachers, however, that has not been done by him rather he has given reply to every memo and he wants to hand over the ACRs of other teachers to WP(C) No.8756/2007 Page 2 of 5 Directorate of Education. 6. The meeting of DPC was convened on 14th September, 2007 and in the said DPC, the respondent No.4, Shri Inderjit Singh, has been promoted being a senior most teacher in the school and not according to the merit according to the petitioner. 7. The grievance of the petitioner is based on his premise that the respondent No.4 has been promoted on the basis of seniority and not on merit and to substantiate that learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out the assessment of respondent No.4. The learned counsel has pointed out remarks in the ACR of 2004 that he is not punctual and he was also reprimanded verbally as well as in writing. The petitioner has also pointed out and compared the remarks given to the petitioner by the head of the school in his ACR for 2006 that he is a very good teacher and he is an asset to the school and consequently the petitioner contends that he ought to have been selected in place of respondent No.4 and therefore, the promotion of respondent No.4 is malafide. 8. Perusal of other reports of respondent No.4 specially for 2006 reflects that even respondent No.4 during the period April 2005 to March 2006 which assessment was given on 6th July, 2006 has been WP(C) No.8756/2007 Page 3 of 5 categorized as a very good teacher and his grading is “very good”. 9. The plea of the petitioner that the respondent no.4 has been promoted on account of favoritism shown to him and promoting him only on the basis of his seniority, is based on petitioner’s mis- conception and seems to be an attempt to continue to be the Vice Principal of the school. 10. The allegation that the respondent no.4 has been promoted only on the basis of seniority and not on merit is not supported by any cogent evidence. Prima facie, there is nothing to show that the DPC which was convened on 14th September, 2007 has considered only the seniority. The allegation is based on petitioner's own premise and is without any legal and factual basis and is an attempt to somehow continue to act as the Vice Principal. 11. The petitioner had taken the charge from outgoing Vice Principal, Shri Mahender Singh, although he was not entitled to take the charge as the charge was to be given to respondent No.4 in terms of letter of the respondent No.2. However, he has continued with the charge and the various letters by the respondent No.3 to the petitioner though replied, however, the charge has not been handed over on one pretext or other. WP(C) No.8756/2007 Page 4 of 5 12. In the circumstances, it is inevitable to infer that the petitioner who took the charge from the Vice Principal unlawfully is trying to continue with the charge and in any case there is no apparent perversity in the decision of DPC recommending promotion of respondent No.4 to the post of the Principal. This court in any case, does not have to review the selection made by the DPC for the promotion to the post of Vice Principal in the present facts and circumstances nor can substitute the recommendation of DPC with its own recommendations. The writ petition is, therefore, without any merit and is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. January 08, 2008 ANIL KUMAR, J. 'K/Dev' WP(C) No.8756/2007 Page 5 of 5