JUDGMENT
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
Page 1572
1. In these two proceedings, the grievance of the common writ petitioner, an aided school under the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act, is that the third respondent, Directorate of Education, issued notices under Section 24(4) of the Act directing it to show cause in regard to the proposal for filling up the posts of Principal and Vice-Principal respectively.
2. In earlier Writ proceedings, this Court had occasion to examine the directions issued by the National Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission, which had intervened in regard to filling up posts of Principal and Vice-Principal. This Court had, in the previous judgment in CWP 876/2000, Page 1573 (filed by the petitioner) quashed the directives of the Commission by its order dated 13th March, 2002. The 4th respondent at whose behest the Commission issued directives in those proceedings carried the matter in appeal; the Letters Patent Appeal, being No. 349/2002 was dismissed on 17th December, 2002.
3. After the order of the Division Bench, confirming the judgment of the Single Bench, – which had ruled that the respondent No. 1 Commission could not in terms of the 1992 Act and provisions of law-issue the impugned directives, the matter ought to have achieved quitous. However, the Commission by its letter dated 20th May, 2005 wrote to the Directorate of Education (respondent No. 3) that the school had been maintaining a wrong seniority list in the grade of the PGT and that the same had to be got corrected by the Commission. The Commission accordingly directed the respondent No. 3 to hold a review DPC as per the correct seniority list.
4. In the light of this order, the Directorate issued show cause notice on 15th September, 2005 as well as the impugned show cause notice.
5. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that writ and declaration of this Court having been affirmed by the Division Bench, the jurisdiction of the Commission to interfere in regard to the filling up two posts of Vice- Principle and Principal respectively did not exist. It was also contended that the orders of the Commission cannot be sustained because they are vitiated due to non-application of minds.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, who appeared and argued in support of the directives issued by the Commission, stated that the latter was within its right to do so. He claimed that the fourth respondent was not pressing his request for reservation to the post of either the Vice-Principal or Principal which had been concluded by the decision of the Division Bench. However, he submitted that the Commission was correctly moved and that did exercise its jurisdiction in accordance with law since the said 4th respondent’s position in the seniority list had been wrongly reflected, thus resulting in exclusion of his case for consideration for promotion. It is also submitted that one Sh. T.P.S. Chauhan, who was shown at serial No. 2 in the seniority list was ineligible for consideration to the post of Vice Principal and Principal.
7. Mr. Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent submitted that in the facts of this case, the writ of this Court vis-a-vis the direction of the Commission to fill a solitary or single post in the cadre had become final. He, however, contended that the Commission has ample powers both under the 1992 Act which created it as well as Article 338 of the Constitution to intervene in matters where the mandate of law was not complied with vis-a-vis the adequacy of representation of Schedule Castes/Schedule Tribes Communities in public employment. It was contended that in the peculiar facts of this case, even though the jurisdiction of the Commission to issue directions could not be questioned, the exercise of such power may not have been warranted.
Page 1574
8. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner management submits upon instructions that the respondent No. 4 is eligible for consideration for promotion, having fulfillled the eligibility criteria prescribed for that purpose. It was also submitted that the seniority list per se is not conclusive, since both the posts are selection posts which means that relative merits of the eligible candidates would be considered as per their records. It was also submitted that Sh. T.P.S. Chauhan, whose name has been shown in the seniority list, would in fact is not eligible and would not be considered for promotion for either of the posts. Learned counsel also contended that in the earlier round too Sh. Chauhan had not been considered.
9. In view of the above statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner and having considered the contentions on behalf of 4th respondent, I am of the opinion that these writ petitions can be disposed off at this stage. The Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 are directed to consider the candidature of the 4th respondent to the post of Vice Principal/Principal in view of the statement made at the Bar today. While doing so, the name of Sh. T.P.S. Chauhan shall not be considered since admittedly he is not eligible according to the rules. The post being a selection one, there is no gain saying that no-one candidate has a right to claim primacy on the basis of seniority alone.
10. The writ petitions are disposed off in terms of the above directions. The petitioner management shall approach the third respondent with a proposal and the process of holding a DPC and selecting the suitable candidate shall be completed within a period of three months from today.
11. Order dusty.