Smt. Seema Maheswari Vs. the Director, Director of Education and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - - while merit has to be recognized and rewarded, advancement in an incumbent's career should not be regarded as matter of course but should be earned by dint of hard work, good conduct and result oriented performance as reflected in the annual confidential reports and based on strict and rigorous selection process. learned counsel further submits that petitioner had good acrs and the respondents had themselves found her suitable for consideration.manmohan sarin, j.1. rule.with the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. petitioner-seema maheshwari, has been working with respondent no.3-school since 29.9.1989. petitioner holds a master degree in science and b.ed. she is presently working as trained graduate teacher (tgt). some time in the month of january, 2003, upon the retirement of the hod (physics), a vacancy arose for the post of pgt (physics).3. respondent nos.2-3 thereupon appointed a departmental promotion committee (dpc) to over see the selection of the candidates from among the teachers working in the school. the departmental promotion committee comprised the chairman managing committee, principal afgji, principal afbbs, principal tafs and assistant director education schools of the air force schools. the departmental promotion committee in its meeting of 28.1.2003, laid down the criteria for consideration of the candidates for the post of pgt in physics. the essential qualification was master degree in the subject and a teaching degree from the recognized university. five years of service as regular incumbent was to be considered. acrs of last five years were to be perused. the committee laid down the following criteria to regulate the assessment of suitability of the candidate:-'while merit has to be recognized and rewarded, advancement in an incumbent's career should not be regarded as matter of course but should be earned by dint of hard work, good conduct and result oriented performance as reflected in the annual confidential reports and based on strict and rigorous selection process.'the committee also decided that average performance should be regarded as routine and under distinguished. 4. the committee considered the cases of eligible candidates, namely, the petitioner and one ms. poonam sharma. upon perusal of the acrs, the committee asked the principal to ascertain the willingness of the two candidates and observe their classes/lessons in order to ascertain their suitability/subject competence. in the event, the head of the department submitted its report on the performance of the two candidates. the committee did not find the petitioner to be competent enough to take 11th and 12th classes (physics) and did not recommend her selection. ms. poonam sharma did not present herself and was found to be not interested.5. the committee in the circumstances decided to give the advertisement for the post open to general public with the petitioner and other candidates being eligible to participate. 6. learned counsel for the petitioner assails the decision to invite applications from general candidates. he also submits that petitioner was nominated to attend seminars for teachers, who had been taking classes for 11th and 12th . respondent could not suddenly turn around and hold that petitioner was not competent to take classes of 11th and 12th. learned counsel further submits that petitioner had good acrs and the respondents had themselves found her suitable for consideration. learned counsel further submitted that she had been assigned the job of carrying out practicals for class xi and the present decision to reject her candidature was vitiated, being an irrational one. 7. i am unable to accept the submission of the petitioner. for maintaining high standards in education, if an institution finds that the internal candidates were not in a position to meet the said standards, then the decision to invite applications from the general public, cannot be faulted with. moreover, in this case, there are no specific allegation of any mala fides against the respondents. petitioner, it appears, has a reasonable record, but it still fell short of the expectations of the respondents and meet the criteria laid down by the departmental promotion committee. the court sitting in writ jurisdiction would not substitute its own opinion or evaluation for that of the regularly constituted departmental promotion committee, unless the decision making process is vitiated either by non-compliance with the requisite procedure or arbitrariness and mala fides. petitioner has still been left free to participate in the open general selection. i do not find any merit in the writ petition, which is dismissed.