ORDER
Vikramajit Sen, J. (Oral)
1. The facts of the case are singular. That the Petitioner holds an M.A. Degree in Economics from a recognised University. It appears that she was first employed with Respondent No.3, which is admittedly a minority school as envisaged in Article 30 of the Constitution of India, in 1975 as an Assistant Teacher. In 1981 she was promoted as TGT (Language). Since 1986 she has been teaching Economics to the XIth and XIIth Class students in Respondent no.3. In 1990 a vacancy occurred for the post of PGT (Economics). A DPC was constituted in which the nominee of the Department of Education was present. There is no challenge by the Department to the constitution or functioning of this DPC. The DPC by a unanimously decided to promote the Petitioner as PGT(Economics). The Department of Education, however, has not granted its approval to this decision of the DPC. The consequence is that the subject in which she had postgraduate, but her promotion/appointment to this post has not received bureaucratic approval.
2. The reason for not granting this approval has been explained by learned counsel appearing for the Department to be that the Petitioner belongs to the Cadre of TGT (Language). She can, therefore, not be considered for promotion to the Cadre of PGT (Economics), even despite her being fully qualified and experienced for the job.
3. The relevant enquiry to be conducted is to ascertain -whether, at the appropriate time, the Petitioner fulfillled the qualification required for being considered for the appointment as TGT(Economics). As stated here in above it is not in dispute that she fulfills this qualification. She has also been teaching Economics in the very same School (Respondent No.3.) since 1986 even though she was a TGT (Language). In this connecting reliance has been placed on behalf of the Petitioner on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in CWP 591/1990 Mithlesh Kumari Vs. Lieutenant Governor and others, wherein it was specifically held that the extant Rules do not mention any Feeder cadre for the purpose of promotion as PGT (Sanskrit). It was observed as below:
“Mr. C.L. Narasimhan appearing for respondent No.5, has taken us to the applicable rules for the promotion to the post of Post Graduate Teacher made by the Directorate of Education, Delhi Administration. According to the rules, in there vent of promotion, the essential requirement is that a person must be a “Trained Graduate Teacher in the scale of Rs.250-550 possessing post graduate diploma of 2 years duration in science from Delhi University with 5 years regular service in grade OR Trained Graduate Teachers Language in the scale of Rs.250-550 possessing qualifications prescribed for direct recruits with 5 years regular service in the grade.” It is the latter part of this rule, which is applicable to cases of Language Teachers. It is not disputed that the petitioner is in the scale of Rs.250-550, and has been in regular service for five years in the grade. A perusal of the said rules shows that the said recruitment rules do not mention “feeder cadre” for the purposes of promotion as Post Graduate Teacher (Sanskrit).”
4. Syllogistically, if there is no feeder cadre for promotions to PGT (sanskrit) there would be little reason to require it prevailing for other cadres also, whether it be from a particular subject to another or from the Language stream to the Science or Economic disciplines. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner drew attention to the case of Mrs. Satinder Bhatia who no doubt was a Language Teacher, but was promoted to PGT (English) although she was teaching Hindi. Reference was also made to a letter/clarification of the Department bearing Ref. No. 507/2000-28 dated 24.2.98, wherein keeping the Recruitment Rules in perspective Smt. K. Khattar, TGT(Science) was cleared for promotion to PGT(Economics). The logic and reason in it being permissible for a Hindi teacher to be promoted as an all four subjects being tally different, but it being impermissible for the Petitioner to be promoted to PGT(Economics) because she was appointed as TGT(Language) totally discounting and disregarding her qualification (M.A. Economics) and teaching experience. In this contest Learned Counsel, duly briefed by the Director of Education , who even present in Court, heavily relied on the Recruitment Rules of the Directorate of Education,the relevant part of which reads as follows:
“For the posts of PGT in Hindi, Sanskrit, Punjabi, etc. only Trained Graduate Teachers in Sanskrit and in Modern Indian Language concerned will be considered for promotion in respective subjects. For the posts of PGT in other subject only Trained Graduate Teachers (Science ‘A’ Science ‘B’ Commerce, Agriculture and General) will be considered.”
5. I am unable to appreciate how this Note is to be considered as mandating that a separate Feeder Cadre must exist for appointment as PGT (Economics). It should not be overlooked that the Petitioner has been teaching Economics to the 11th and 12th Classes since 1986, that is, for the last fifteen Years. It is reiterated by learned counsel for the Petitioner that there is o conceivable logic or justification that while a general candidate can be considered to the post of PGT (Economics), a candidate from the Language stream possessing requisite qualification and experience cannot be so considered. This distinct in and disentitlement is not borne out from any of the Regulations pointed out tome by learned counsel for the Respondent. There is also apparent wisdom in prohibiting a person who is qualified in teaching a particular subject from switching from the Language Steam to the particular subject in which she has Mastered/Post Graduated, which in this case is Economics.
6. There is another aspect of this case which requires special consideration and mention. The decision of the DPC, which is in favor of the Petitioner being promoted as TGT (Economics), was conveyed tot he Director of Education on 29th October, 1990. This was in conformity with Rule 98(3) of the Delhi School Education Rules 1973. It should also be recalled that the nominee of the Department was part of the DPC and did not raise any objection to the selection of the Petitioner. The first response to this letter was sent on 20th of June, 1991. Even in this letter the Department’s disapproval was not conveyed.All that was stated was that the Petitioner was free to compete along with direct candidates’ after obtaining relaxation of age. The Petitioner’s appointment/promotion has the deemed approval of the Department. It appears that the department has not given due heed to Sub-rule (4) of Rule 98 which reads as follows:
“The Director shall be deemed to have approved an appointment made by the Managing Committee of an aided school if within fifteen days from the date on which the particulars of the appointment are communicated to him under sub-rule (3), he does not intimate to the Managing Committee his disapproval of the appointment, and the person so appointed shall be entitled for his salary and allowance from the date of his appointment”.
7. Respondent No.3 the School in which the Petitioner has been teaching for two decades, is a Minority Education Institution, as envisaged in Article 30 of the Constitution. It is no longer res integra that such the administration of such minority Schools must be left in the hands of the particular body, the exception being where there it is palpably evident that such body/persons are maladministering the School. Rule 98(4) must be rigorously adhered to in these cases.
8. For all these reasons I am satisfied that the Writ Petition is well founded and deserves to be allowed. The Petitioner shall be deemed to have been appointed/promoted to the post of PGT (Economics) with effect from 5th November, 1990 i.e. fifteen days after the Director was informed for her selection. She will be entitled to all consequential and financial benefits.
9. Parties shall, however, bear their respective costs.