1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Delhi
  4. /
  5. 2012
  6. /
  7. January


High Court Of Delhi|02 July, 2012


1. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to appoint him as PGT Persian in Anglo Arabic Senior Secondary School, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi – 110006 in preference to respondent No.5 or any other person, and in case respondent No.5 has already been promoted as PGT (Persian), his promotion be set aside and declared as null and void.
2. The petitioner joined as Language Teacher, in the said school on 20.08.1969. He has been teaching Urdu and Persian as a Language Teacher. Whereas, respondent No.5 namely Shri Arif Husssain Kazmi joined the said school on 05.10.1976 and has also been working as language teacher and teaching Persian language since then. However, he was junior to the petitioner by about seven years.
3. A vacancy for Language Teacher (Persian) PGT arose in the said school during the year 1999. Respondent No.5 although being junior to the petitioner also applied for the same and promoted to the said post.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the matter of fixing the seniority between the petitioner and respondent No.5 was referred to the respondent No.2 for decision. The respondent No.3 through the Deputy Education Officer, Zone – 27 vide letter No.Z/XXVII/C/99/ 9945 dated 08.02.1999 directed the respondent No.4 to appoint the petitioner as PGT Persian in preference to Arif Hussain Kazmi i.e. respondent No.5.
5. For the aforesaid promotion, DPC was held on 24.08.1999 for filling up the vacant post of PGT Persian in the above mentioned school. The said committee was headed by Professor Zahid H. Khan, as chairman. The said committee was anxious to appoint respondent No.5 in preference to petitioner.
6. He argued that the minutes of the meeting were returned by the chairman, who refused to sign the same because respondent No.5 could not be promoted from the post of TGT to the post of PGT prior to the promotion of the petitioner. Respondent Nos.3 & 4 favoured respondent No.5 against the rules.
7. The petitioner is M.A.in Persian (1st Division) from Delhi University and did B.Ed from Jamia Millia Islamia, Delhi and was the senior most teacher in the category of language teacher. The petitioner alone was entitled to be promoted as PGT Persian.
8. Being aggrieved by the decision of the DPC, petitioner made representation to the respondent No.3 on 09.12.1998 and 15.02.1999, but all in vain.
9. Learned counsel for petitioner has also relied upon a decision of this Court on similar issue decided in W.P.C. No.591/1990 vide judgment dated 07.10.1991.
10. Undisputedly, the petitioner retired in August, 2000; despite this the petitioner did not amend the prayer in instant petition.
11. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 have filed response to instant petition wherein they have submitted that petitioner has been working in the said school since 20.08.1969 on the post of Language Teacher and has been teaching Urdu regularly; however, he never taught Persian.
12. The vacancy for PGT Persian arose on 01.02.1999. Initially, the petitioner was appointed as language teacher (Urdu) whereas respondent No.5 was appointed to the post of Language Teacher, therefore, both had applied for the post of PGT Persian.
13. Admittedly, Deputy Direction of Education, Zone No.27 mentioned above informed the Manager of the school – respondent No.3 that the respondent No.5 and petitioner were Language Teachers in the same school and both were qualified for the post of PGT Persian. But since, the petitioner was the senior most teacher, his candidature might be considered before respondent No.5.
14. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that vide aforementioned letter, it was never directed to appoint the petitioner as PGT(Persian) in preference to respondent No.5; whereas it has only been clarified the seniority position with regard to between the petitioner and respondent No.5.
15. As per the minutes of the DPC, the DPC unanimously recommended respondent No.5 to be promoted to the post of PGT(Persian) with immediate effect, because of the fact that he has been teaching Persian continuously for the last five years and, therefore, promoted to the post of PGT(Persian) by a unanimous decision of DPC dated 24.08.1999; whereas the petitioner never taught Persian, therefore, could not be promoted to the said post.
16. It is further submitted that the petitioner himself admitted vide Annexure P-4 to the petition that he taught Persian to Middle Classes from Sessions 1978-79 to 1985-86 only and not thereafter. He joined the post of Language Teacher (Urdu) whereas the respondent No.5 had joined the school in the post of Language Teacher.
17. After hearing learned counsels for parties, it is emerged that the post in question was a ‘Merit-cum-Selection post’. The petitioner and the respondent No.5 applied for the same; though the petitioner was senior to respondent No.5; still the fact remains that respondent No.5 was regularly taking classes and teaching Persian in the respondent No.3 school. The petitioner was appointed against the post of Language Teacher (Urdu); whereas the respondent No.5 was appointed against the post of Language Teacher. The promotion committee had considered the candidature of all the eligible candidates in accordance with Rule 96 of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 and thereafter, selected the most suitable candidate.
18. The Recruitment Rules does not refer to the Persian subject, but merely clarifies that for the post of PGT in Hindi, Sanskrit and Punjabi etc Trained Graduate Teacher in Sanskrit and in Modern Indian Language concerned will be considered for promotion.
19. Admittedly, Persian is not a modern Indian language and the rules do not specify that the selection/promotion was to be made to the senior most teacher. Had the seniority only been the criteria, then there was no mean to call the eligible candidates. If the petitioner had any objection on considering the name of respondent No.5, then he would have been challenged the same at that point of time.
20. The petitioner was not the only eligible candidate. Therefore, the DPC considered the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 and finally selected respondent No.5, for the reasons discussed above.
21. In view of above discussion, I find no discrepancy in the decision of respondents by appointing respondent No.5 to the post of PGT(Persian).
22. Therefore, there is no merit in the instant petition.
23. Accordingly, same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.



High Court Of Delhi

02 July, 2012
  • Suresh Kait
  • Kait