JUDGMENT
Vijender Jain, J.
(1) This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner against the impugned letters dated 11.6.80,21.11.80, 7.2.81, 24.4.81 and 30.9.81 of the Director of Education and the letter of the Manager of the School dated 1.10.81. declining to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of P.G.T. (Hindi).
(2) The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to advertisement which is at page 156 of the paper book which appeared in the Hindustan Times on 27.7.65 respondent school invited applications. Pursuant to that advertisement petitioner applied and was selected as a T.G.T. for a period of one year and subsequently she was confirmed as a T.G.T. in the scale of Rs-170-330 with effect from 1.9.66. The petitioner is a B.A.(Hons.) Hindi and M.A.(Hindi), with additional degree of Prabhakar.
(3) Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that initially the post of T.G.T, was known as ‘Assistant Teacher’ and her appointment at that time was governed under Delhi Education Code, 1965. He has further contended that the Director of Education itself had issued a circular dated 24.4.70, inter alia, laying down the guidelines in the matter of promotion regarding teachers. Paragraph 3(a) of the said Circular reads as follows :- “ALL the posts of teachers in the aided school shall be treated as non-selection posts. If any post carrying higher grade falls vacant in any school, and where a teacher possessing requisite qualifications is available in that very school, in such an event the senior most teacher should be promoted to the higher post. For promotion in such cases the teacher general behavior, the report regarding his conduct and professional efficiency in the inspection reports as also in his character roll folders relating to the past 2 years should be categorised as ‘good’ and he should have at his credit 3 years teaching experience in his scale. Such teacher who happens to meet the above requirements may be promoted with the previous approval of the education officer. In exceptional cases. Relaxation to the extent of 6 months in the teachers experience may be granted by the Deputy Director of Education (Zonal).”
(4) Mr. Gupta has contended that in view of the stand of the respondent that for promotion the general behavior of the teacher, the report regarding his or her conduct and professional efficiency in the inspection report and the character rolls for the past two years if found ‘good’ the teacher was to he promoted with the previous approval of the Education Officer, all these qualifications were fulfillled by the petitioner. What was required and intended by the said circular in case higher grade post was lying vacant in any school, person possessing requisite qualification was available in that very school in that event the senior most teacher was to be promoted to the higher post.
(5) Mr. Gupta has contended that the petitioner was leaching Hindi from 1.9.65. She was eligible for promotion. She has 30 years experience now in leaching Hindi. He has also invited my attention to a resolution passed by the Managing Committee of the School dated 14.5.80 wherein the management itself had resolved that the petitioner he promoted as P.G.T. against vacant post as the petitioner fulfillled all terms and conditions along with .qualifications as prescribed by the department and her work being found satisfactory.
(6) Though nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent, however, respondent has filed its return to the writ petition. The only stand taken by the respondent is that as the petitioner was not initially appointed as T.G.T. (MIL) and she was appointed as Tgt (Genl.) therefore, petitioner cannot be promoted to the post of PGT. The respondent has no where disputed that the petitioner was not otherwise eligible either in terms of experience or qualifications to be post of P.G.T.
(7) Mr. Gupta in support of his submissions has relied upon Narender C’hadha and Others Vs. Union of India and others, .
(8) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the counter filed by the respondent.
(9) It is an admitted case of the parties that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1965 as a Trained Graduate Teacher. Obviously. in the year 1965 the Rules which were framed in 1975 pursuant to which notification was issued was not in force on which the petitioner has heavily relied upon in its counter-affidavit. As a matter of fact, the then Director of Education in the year 1970 vide its circular dated 24.4.70 itself had circulated to all the principals that in relation to the promotion if a senior teacher is available then keeping in view the over all performance of such teacher, work, experience and character roll, the teacher if senior most be promoted. In view of own circular of the respondent it does not stand to reason as to how and why the respondent did not grant permission to the management to promote the petitioner. In the initial letter of appointment which is at page 87 of the paper book it is no where mentioned that the petitioner was appointed as ‘T.G.T. in General Category or with a specified subject’. May be because at that lime the nomenclature of the post was ‘Asstt. .Teacher’ and not T.G.T.’ The whole approach of the respondent in this matter is to deny the due of the petitioner who at the time of filing of this petition had 18 years of work experience as Teacher in Hindi. The management was the best judge to certify about the teaching experience of particular course the petitioner was teaching in the school. In the absence of any motive which no where has been attributed to the management by the Director of Education, non-consideration for promotion to the post of P.G.T. the petitioner was bad in law. This Court is again surprised to see a letter dated 18.12.91 emanating from one Shri kali Charan, Deputy Director of Education in reply to a letter from the manager of the school regarding the approval of the petitioner as P.G.T., the only reason given in the reply of the aforesaid Deputy Director of Education was that the petitioner’s case cannot be considered for promotion as the writ petition is pending in the court of law. Court can only ex-press its dismay with the attitude of the department as taken in disposing the representation of the petitioner. Supreme Court in Narender Chadha’s case (supra) held :- “BUT in a case of the kind before us where persons have been allowed to function in higher posts for 15 to 20 years with due deliberation it would be certainly unjust to hold that they have no sort of claim to such posts and could be reverted unceremoniously or treated as persons not belonging to the Service at all, particularly where the Government is endowed with the power to relax the Rules to avoid unjust results.”
(10) For the reasons recorded above, I hold that the impugned letters are bad in law. The same arc hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute. The petitioner is entitled to all the benefits accrued to her. She will be promoted as P.G.T. from the lime she became senior most teacher in her school. She will also be entitled to all consequential benefits. No order as to costs.