Himachal Pradesh High Court
Smt. Sunita Chandel W/O Shri Anil vs Union Of India Through Secretary on 24 June, 2022
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
ON THE 24th DAY OF JUNE, 2022
.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1869 OF 2018
Between:
SMT. SUNITA CHANDEL W/O SHRI ANIL
CHANDEL, R/O VILLAGE & P.O. SARAKAR,
TEHSIL AND DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, H.P.
....PETITIONER
(BY MR. B.N. MEHTA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY
DEFENCE, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI.
2. THE CHAIRMAN, LOCAL BOARD OF
ADMINISTRATION FOR SAINIK SCHOOL,
SUJANPUR TIHRA, H.P.
3. PRINCIPAL SAINIK SCHOOL, SUJANPUR
TIHRA, H.P.
4. MS. INDU PURI W/O SH. RAJEEV PURI, TGT
(ENGLISH), SAINIK SCHOOL, SUJANPUR
TIHRA.
5.
......RESPONDENTS.
(MR. SHASHI SHIRSHOO, CGC, FOR R-1 TO 3).
(MR. ABHINAV PUROHIT, ADVOCATE, FOR R-4).
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the following:
ORDER
By way of present petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main relief(s):
::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2022 20:02:17 :::CIS 2"(i). That the petitioner in the facts and circumstances prayed that the Civil Writ Petition may very kindly be allowed and this Hon'ble Court may very kindly be pleased to set aside and quash the outcome of the DPC as per Annexure .
P-9 after calling for the scrutiny of entire DPC record w.e.f.24.02.2018 to 25.07.2018 for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.
(ii) That after quashing and setting aside the promotion of the respondent No.4, the respondents may be directed to hold fresh DPC by assessing the merit of the candidate by perusing the 5 years ACR's or in the alternative since the school of respondents is situated in the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court the respondents should follow the conduct of DPC as is application in HPPSC."
2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that petitioner herein was appointed as Assistant Master (English) at Sainik School, Sujanpur Tihra, District Hamirpur, H.P., on 01.01.2011. One Sh. S.K. Chadda, a regular TGT (English) performing the duties against this post till January 2018, applied for voluntary retirement from service with effect from 26.04.2018. On 23.01.2018, Sainik School originated proposal to fill up aforesaid post of PGT (English) by way of promotion and accordingly vide communication dated 23.01.2018 requested to Hony Secy Sainik Schools Society, MOD, New Delhi to release the vacancy of PGT (English) with effect from 26.04.2018. Before vacancy could be released by the society, respondent-school with the sole objective of sounding the eligible candidates and allowing them sufficient preparation time, decided to issue letter No. SSST/DPC/2018, dated 24.02.2018 to the two eligible candidates for the Departmental Promotion Committee i.e. petitioner and respondent No.4, who was appointed as Assistant Master ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2022 20:02:17 :::CIS 3 (English) on 4.4.2011. Vide aforesaid letter, the provisions of the Society Rule Book about composition of Departmental Promotion .
Committee as well as the tests planned to be conducted as part of the Departmental Promotion Committee were intimated. The Syllabus of written examination was also specified and finally the Sainik School Society vide their letter No.10(5)/2011/D(SSC) dated 27.04.2018 released the vacancy of Master (English). On 7.05.2018 respondent-school as per Rule 5.27 of Rule Book issued by the Board of Governors, Sainik School Society constituted the Departmental Promotion Committee comprising of the following members:-
i) Principal, Sainik School : President Officer
ii) Vice Principal, Sainik School : Member
iii) Representative from State Administration: Member
iv) Representative of Chairman LBA : Member.
v) Subject Expert : Member.
3. Though, the meetings of all the Departmental Promotion Committee in Sainik School are to be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the SOP on the subject issued vide Sainik Schools Society letter No.14(22)/SSS/2017, dated 24.08.2017, but since SOP does not specifically lay down details, such as syllabus for the written exam, the maximum marks for the written exam, the qualifying marks for written exam, details of what is to be assessed during the Teaching demonstration, and whether an interview is to be conducted or not, DPC member with a view to ensure transparency and fair play, decided to keep the DPC candidates updated about the ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2022 20:02:17 :::CIS 4 syllabus and the suggested scheme of examination. The standard Operating Procedure (SOP) provided that relative weightage of .
various elements such as written test, teaching demonstration, ACRs of the last five years are to be seen by DPC while considering the case of the candidate for promotion to the post of PGT. On 11.06.2018 DPC conducted written exam in accordance with provisions of SOP on the subject. Entire proceedings of DPC were video recorded to ensure total transparency. Teaching demonstration was held in the topic chosen by the candidates themselves. Answer sheets of written examination were evaluated by an independent subject expert detailed by the State Education Department.
Subsequently, on the basis of overall merit respondent No.4, Ms.Indu Puri came to be promoted to the post of PGT(English), as is evident from the proceedings of the DPC placed on record as Annexure R-3 by respondent No.1.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with selection of respondent No.4, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for the reliefs, as have been reproduced hereinabove.
5. In nutshell, grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and has been further canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner is that DPC while conducting proceedings failed to adhere to the procedure prescribed under SOP.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that ACR's pertaining ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2022 20:02:17 :::CIS 5 to last five years were not taken into consideration because bare perusal of the same clearly reveals that petitioner was on better .
footing then respondent No.4 and as such, she could not have been awarded less marks on account of assessment of ACR. Besides above, it has been further argued on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner that adverse entries never came to be communicated to the petitioner and as such, no reliance ought to have been placed by the DPC on the same while making assessment.
6. Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Central Government Counsel representing respondents No.1 to 3 and Mr. Abhinav Purohit learned counsel representing respondent No.4, while supporting the selection of respondent No.4, contended that there is no illegality and infirmity in the DPC proceedings because same came to be conducted strictly on the basis of procedure laid down in SOP issued by the Society. Above named counsel argued that ACRs of last five years were assessed, as is evident from the DPC proceedings and if ACRs of the petitioner herein are perused juxtaposing ACRs of selected candidate respondent No.4, no illegality can be said to have been committed the DPC while awarding higher marks to respondent No.4 because ACRs for the last five years of respondent No.4 are/ were better than the petitioner.
7. Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, learned Central Government Counsel while inviting attention of this Court to the prayer made in the instant petition argued that at no point of time challenge ever ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2022 20:02:17 :::CIS 6 came to be laid to the action of the respondent inasmuch as adverse entries in ACRs were not communicated, rather in the instant .
proceedings selection of respondent No.4 has been sought to be quashed on the ground that DPC has failed to assess the ACRs of both the candidates in terms of procedure laid down in the SOP.
Lastly, learned counsel representing respondents No.1 to 4 stated that since respondent No.4 obtained higher marks in written examination than the petitioner, petition having been filed by the petitioner, seeking therein quashment of respondent No.4 is not maintainable, especially when petitioner participated in the proceedings and has approached this Court after having failed in the same.
8. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that in the instant proceedings action of respondents inasmuch as non-
communication of adverse entries in the ACRs for the last five years has been not laid challenge, rather proceedings of DPC whereby respondent No.4 came to be promoted to the post of PGT has been laid challenge on the ground that DPC while assessing ACRs of the candidates have not followed the due procedure as laid down in SOP, which plea is totally contrary to the record, as is evident from the pleadings adduced on record by respondent No.1.
9. Proceedings of the DPC placed on record (Annexure R-3) by respondent No.1 clearly reveals that petitioner herein obtained ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2022 20:02:17 :::CIS 7 less marks in written exam than respondent No.4. Though, petitioner obtained higher marks in teaching demonstration, but if result of last .
three years of CBSE is perused, respondent No.4 came to be awarded higher marks on account of her performance. As far as perusal/assessment of ACRs by DPC is concerned, no material worth credence has been led on record to suggests that the assessment made by DPC on the basis of which marks/grade came to be awarded, is not based upon procedure prescribed under SOP. It is not the case of the petitioner that ACR for the last one year was assessed by the DPC while conducing DPC proceedings for promotion to the post of PGT, rather ACRs of last five years of both the candidates i.e. petitioner and respondent No.4 came to be evaluated by the DPC, who after having found respondent No.4 on better footing recommended her for promotion. Since at no point of time, challenge, if any, qua the action of the respondents inasmuch non-
communication of adverse entry came to be laid in the competent court of law, no benefit on account of aforesaid omission, if any, on the part of the respondents, can be granted to the petitioner, who otherwise has approached this Court after having failed in selection process. Since factum with regard to non-communication of adverse entries for the last five years was very much in the knowledge of the petitioner before her having participated in the selection process, she instead of participating in the selection process could represent authorities for communication of adverse entries, so that authorities ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2022 20:02:17 :::CIS 8 could decide her representation, if any, before her having participated in the selection process.
.
10. Having carefully perused the minutes of DPC placed on record, this Court finds no illegality in the same and as such, same are upheld. The present petition fails and same is dismissed accordingly. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
24th June, 2022 (Sandeep Sharma),
(shankar) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2022 20:02:17 :::CIS