Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. Counsel for the respondent also contended that it is not merely ACR of a candidate but many other aspects of the candidate are taken into consideration, some of which have been spelt out in para 3 of the said minutes of DPC meeting. Counsel for respondents No. 3 and 4 also submitted that prior to the DPC meeting the management of the school has to submit work and conduct report of each and every candidate and such report given by the school duly endorsed by the Chairman of the school, clearly, shows that performance of the petitioner in the academic field and in the discharge of other administrative duties was not up to the mark. The counsel also gave justification for submission of the said work and conduct report within three days prior to the DPC on account of the fact that there was a direction from the High Court to comply with the selection process within a period of six months and, therefore, no fault could be found, if the steps were taken with promptitude to complete the selection process. The counsel also submitted that after taking into consideration the ACRs of the petitioner for the relevant period including the ACR of 2003-2004 and gamut of many other parameters of judging the overall qualities of the petitioner, the DPC had arrived at a conclusion that she was not fit for the appointment on the said post.

35. At the time of disposal of said LPA No. 1074/2006 the Division Bench held that the interim order dated 24.05.2006 shall continue to operate during the pendency of the present case till the disposal of the writ petition. The contention of counsel for respondents No. 3 and 4 is that the respondents have already completed the selection process and in compliance with the directions of the Division Bench has not declared the result of the DPC which has been kept in sealed cover. On the other hand, counsel for the petitioner urged to justify the stand of the petitioner for not participating in the selection process which was per se illegal. Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that Division Bench in their order dated 24.05.2006 did not give any specific directions on the petitioner to participate in the selection process as initiated by the respondents. The counsel also submitted that had the petitioner participated in the selection process, then it would have rendered the present petition as infructuous.