Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. It is not in dispute that, under the MACP Scheme as implemented in "ACR"

"APAR"

"MACP"

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/05/2026 at 21:20:20 the Directorate of Education,4 Government of NCT of Delhi, Petitioner became eligible for consideration for 1st financial upgradation w.e.f. 06th August, 2018. The grievance of the Petitioner is that he has been denied the benefit of 1st MACP, solely on account of the below-benchmark grading in his APAR for 2016-2017; that such APAR is vitiated in law as it was never reviewed by the Managing Committee as mandated by Rule 112 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 19735 and was not communicated to him till 17 th July, 2021; and that the subsequent order dated 31 st January, 2023, while granting him partial relief, perpetuates the illegality and treats him unfairly vis-à-vis similarly placed teachers and even vis-à-vis his own APAR for 2017-2018.

(ii) The adverse/below-benchmark grading for 2016-2017 was not communicated till 17th July, 2021, long after MACP had been denied and This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/05/2026 at 21:20:20 well beyond any reasonable period, thereby depriving the Petitioner of his statutory right of appeal/representation under Rule 112(7);

19.1 Whether the Petitioner's APAR for the year 2016-2017 is vitiated on account of absence of review by the Managing Committee and non/delayed communication of the below-benchmark grading. 19.2 Whether, in view of the order dated 18th June, 2018 passed by the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities and the DoE's admitted directive to re-check cases where a "Good" grading blocks MACP benefits, the Respondents could validly rely on a "Good" grading for 2016-2017 to deny the Petitioner MACP.

36. In contrast, the Petitioner's APAR for 2016-2017 was upgraded only from "Average" to "Good". This distinction is difficult to sustain for two reasons. First, the committee's reasoning for both years substantially rests on the same factual matrix, namely, decline in Class X Science results, increase in Class XII results, issuance of warning, and absence of serious misconduct. Second, the Deputy Director has, in principle, accepted that a grading of "Good" constitutes a below-benchmark grading for MACP purposes and warrants neutralisation.