MS SURAKSHA JAGIRDAR vs GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on: 19th December 2023
Pronounced on: 23rd January 2024

+ W.P.(C) 13089/2023, CM. APPL. 51672/2023 & CM. APPL. 56751/2023

MS SURAKSHA JAGIRDAR ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Adv with Mr. Ajay Choudhary Adv.
versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Addl standing counsel with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi and Ms. Manisha, Advocates for DOE.
Mr. Apoorv Kurup, Mr. Varun Nischal and Mr. Shubham Sharma, Advocates for applicants in CM 56751/2023.
Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Ms. Ayushi Bansal and Ms. Swati Bansal Advs. for R-4.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH

JUDGEMENT
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
1. The instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-
a) “Issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus quashing and setting aside the order dated 25.09.2023 & 26.09.2023 issued by Office of Deputy Director Of Education, District South East of termination of probation (simplicitor)/ cancellation of appointment of Petitioner as Principal; and/or
b) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents to restore her position as Principal with all consequential benefits; and/or
c) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to not to cause interference/ hindrance in the working of Petitioner as Principal of the Daisy Dales Senior Secondary School and on successful completion of probation period of one year confirm her service on the said post; and/or
d) Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may kindly deem fit and proper in the conspectus of the case.”

FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The petitioner was regularly appointed as Post Graduate Teacher (referred as “PGT”) (English) in Daisy Dales SS school (hereinafter respondent no.4) on 1st July 2001. The respondent no. 4 reconstructed the service book of the petitioner after it got allegedly destroyed in a fire, new records were sent to CBSE every year as per requirement.
3. Thereafter, vide office order dated 26th March 2019, the petitioner was appointed by the Management of the respondent no.4 as vice principal and subsequently vide office order dated 27th November 2020,the petitioner was regularly promoted as vice principal w.e.f. 1st December 2020. .
4. The petitioner being the vice principal and officiating principal of the school, was authorized by the Managing committee as Authorized Signatory for all official communications in its meeting on 5th December 2020.
5. Further, vide letter dated 2nd November 2021, the respondent no.4 issued a faculty seniority list wherein another PGT Smt. Sunita Dhingra was shown to be senior to the petitioner despite having joined the service later than the petitioner.
6. Aggrieved therefrom, on 13th November 2021 the petitioner challenged office order dated 9th July 2021 and the seniority list dated 2nd November 2021 issued by the Management Committee by way of Writ Petition No. 12862 of 2021 before the Coordinate Bench of this Court, which was disposed of the petition vide order dated 16th November 2021 directing respondent no. 4 herein to consider the representation of the petitioner herein and pass a reasoned order.
7. The respondent no.4 failed to comply with the aforesaid order as a result of which the petitioner filed the Contempt Petition No. 169/2022 before the Coordinate Bench of this Court, thereby alleging that the school management has not passed a speaking order. Vide order dated 9th February 2022 petition was withdrawn on the ground that the respondent has held a Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter DPC) to consider the petitioner for appointment to the post of Principal of respondent no.4.
8. Pursuant to which a DPC, consisting of Chairman of the respondent no.4, Deputy Director, Education (Central) Nominee of Director Education and two Educationist which were – a retired Vice Principal and retired government officer, was constituted on 1st October 2022 to consider the candidates for post of Principal. The DPC found the petitioner most suitable for the post of Principal since she is the senior most and eligible candidate amongst the five candidates considered for the post.
9. The respondent no.2/Directorate of Education issued an order on 20th April 2023 informing the schools about yearly inspection of the Schools by the Team Leaders. It was mentioned in the order that a period upto 30th April 2023 was given to the Inspecting teams to carry out the inspections however, the team did not carry out inspection in the aforesaid period.
10. The inspection was eventually conducted by respondent no.2 on 14th June 2023 around 11.00 AM and sought documents relating to service records of the staff working with the respondent no.4, etc. On 17th June 2023, the petitioner under instructions from the Managing Committee of respondent no.4 requested clarifications from the respondent no.2 regarding the allegedly unusual manner of inspection since at the last hour inspecting team was changed and without any prior intimation.
11. On 20th June 2023, the respondent no.2 sent another inspection team of 8 personnel, led by DOE (Personnel) Mr. Vikas Kalia, again without any prior intimation, arrived at school and forcibly took along with them all the original records of respondent no.4 including the financial and staff”s personal/service records.
12. The respondent no. 3/ Deputy Director of Education, sent inspection report dated 7th July 2023 regarding the inspection conducted on 14th June 2023 which stated that the appointment of the petitioner was illegal as the feeder cadre for post of Principal is only Vice Principal with 10 years regular service as Vice Principal as on 10th January 2019 as per Recruitment Rules. Since, the petitioner did not meet the aforesaid requirement, her appointment was declared illegal. Moreover, in the inspection report, the team concluded to take over the functioning of the school and while forwarding the report to the respondent no.2 sought explanation on the lapses pointed out in report.
13. Pursuant to which, the Management Committee of respondent no.4 in its meeting held on 19th July 2023 approved the minutes of the meeting of DPC approving the appointment of the petitioner as Principal. In the minutes it was recorded that in absence of a principal Ms Nisha Bedi, PGT shall officiate and look after the affairs of the school.
14. Moreover, vide letter dated 21st July 2023 the respondent no.4 provided an explanation with regard to the lapses as had been pointed out by the respondent no.2 in the inspection report dated 7th July 2023.
15. On 26th July 2023 a Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent no.4 threatening action under Section 24 of the Delhi School Education Act & Rules, 1973(hereinafter DSEAR), wherein the management of the respondent no.4 was sought to be taken over by respondent no. 2. The respondent no.4 submitted its reply on 31st August 2023 denying any irregularity and explaining the step taken by it .
16. On 6th September 2023 the respondent no. 2 issued an order of taking over the Management of the respondent no.4 “in view of the reported financial and administrative lapses and irregularities” for a period of one year and appointed Special Officer Ms Maneka Joshi, Vice Principal, SV Masjid Moth to look after the affairs of the respondent no.4. The said Special Officer was, and in her place Ms Neeru Chadha, Principal SRS Kanya Vidyalaya was appointed as Special Officer.
17. The respondent no.3 issued an order No. 721 dated 25th September 2023 and Order No. 728-734 dated 26th September 2023 for termination of probation (simplicitor)/cancellation of appointment as Principal of petitioner being violative of Recruitment Rules for the said post.
18. Being aggrieved from the arbitrary and illegal actions of the respondent no. 1 to 3, specifically the orders dated 25th & 26th September 2023 for termination of probation (simplicitor)/cancellation of appointment of Petitioner as Principal, the petitioner is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
SUBMISSIONS
(on behalf of petitioner)
19. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is qualified to be appointed as the principal of the respondent no. 4. It is further submitted that the respondents absolutely erred in holding that the petitioner was promoted/ appointed as Principal by skipping the post of Vice Principal, which is the feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Principal as per Recruitment Rules.
20. It is contended that the said stand of the respondent is absolutely erroneous. As per the Recruitment Rules notified under the provisions of DSEAR as per notification F. 32/1/84/GEN./78-80/3721-4161 dated 25th February 1980 as amended vide no. F. 32/1/84/Gen./91/98-400, dated 29th January 1991, the feeder cadre of the post of Principal is both Vice Principal as well as PGT with 10 years teaching experience in a higher secondary senior school.
21. It is submitted that in the year 2008 the Management of the respondent no.4 reconstructed the service book of the entire staff as the records were destroyed in the fire. The then Principal/ Management officials entered the date of appointment as per records correctly as 1st July 2001, however it appears that in one of the columns there is correction in the year using white fluid, while at all other places it was unaltered date of 1st July 2001. Pertinently, the said entries were duly verified by the Management and on yearly basis the same are being inspected.
22. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 1 to 3 have no authority or jurisdiction under the DSEAR to interfere with the internal administration of the Unaided Private School and issue the impugned order of termination of probation or that of cancellation of appointment of Petitioner as Principal.
23. It is submitted that in the impugned order passed by the respondent no. 1 to 3 is untenable in wake of clear recommendation of the duly constituted DPC as per provisions of Rule 96 of DSEAR 1973 with nominee of Director present during the DPC. Rule 98 of DSEAR 1973 stipulates that the appointment of every employee of a school shall be made by its managing committee. Further in proviso to sub-section 2 of Rule 98 of DSEAR 1973 provides that even in case of aided school approval of Director would be required only when director’s nominee is not present, which by necessary implication means that in case of unaided recognised schools, the approval of Director is not required.
24. It is submitted that the respondents have wrongly assumed that the feeder cadre for post of Principal is Vice Principal alone as per notification dated 10th January 2019. The Notification dated 10th January 2019 and subsequent notification of 2nd February 2023 are specifically meant for government schools and they have no application on the private aided/ unaided schools.
25. It is also submitted that the petitioner was both eligible and suitable for being promoted/ appointed as Principal by the DPC duly constituted as per the provisions of DSEAR being senior most PGT working since last more than 21 years and no other candidate senior or more suitable than her.
26. It is submitted that in view of the foregoing submissions, the instant petition may be allowed and the reliefs as prayed for may be granted.
(on behalf of the respondent)
27. Per contra, Learned ASC appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 to 3 submitted petitioner’s appointment to the position of principal is violative of the rules of recruitment pertaining to appointment of principal. Therefore, the impugned orders have been passed by the respondents in consonance with the recruitment rules governing the petitioner.
28. It is submitted that the appointment letter of the petitioner is not genuine since the same does not contain any dispatch or reference number, signature and seal of issuing authority as well as acceptance of the same by the petitioner.
29. It is further submitted that the promotion of the petitioner to the post of vice principal vide order dated 9th November 2011 stated that records in reference to the candidate in the zone of consideration were not complete and therefore the DPC was deffered.
30. It is contended that the minutes of meeting of DPC considering seniority list for the promotion of the petitioner was prepared without consulting the respondent no. 1 to 3.
31. It is submitted that the petitioner does not possess the essential qualification for the post of principal as notified by statutory rules since she does not have 10 years of teaching experience as principal vide gazette notification dated 7th April 1980 and notification dated 29th January 1991, which notifies the amended rules for the position of principal and vice principal, PGT in higher senior secondary school or inter College.
32. It is further submitted that the leave account of the petitioner was opened only in the September 2008 however, these entries were crossed and thereafter six pages had been left blank and entries started again from 1st January 2008. The said six pages being left blank is a malafide act of the respondent number 4 to cover up the period from 2001 onwards. Hence, there is no proof /document which states that the petitioner was serving at respondent no. 4 since 2001.
33. In view of the foregoing submissions, counsel for the respondents prayed that the present petition is devoid of any merits and may be dismissed by this Court.
34. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 4 submitted that the petitioner has been working in the school since 2001. She possesses all the required qualifications and was appointed as PGT English with respondent no.4. In the year 2008 school management had to reconstruct the service record of the entire staff working in the school as due to fire the files of the school management were destroyed, therefore, no appointment, service book, pay revisions, leave records of any staff is available for the period prior to 2008.
35. It is submitted that pursuant thereto and as per the direction of the DOE the DPC was held on 1st October 2022 with nominee of DOE present as per the provisions of DSEAR. The DPC held on 1st October 2022 to consider the candidates for post of Principal, as per provisions of Rule · 96(2) of Delhi School Education Act & Rules, 1973 consisted of:
a. Chairman of the School,
b. Deputy Director, Education (Central)- Nominee of Director Education,
c. Educationalist – Retired Vice Principal and Retired Government Officer,
36. It is submitted that DPC found the petitioner most suitable for the post of Principal and an eligible candidate amongst the five candidates considered for the post. As per Recruitment Rules she had more than 10 years’ experience as PGT and she was senior most PGT in school.
37. It is contended that on 7th October 2022 as per recommendation of DPC and approval of the members of Management Committee the petitioner was appointed to the post of the Principal with a probation period of 1 year. The letter of appointment was issued by Chairman on behalf of the Management Committee, which is the appointing authority. The appointment was also approved post facto in writing by the Managing Committee in its first meeting held thereafter on 19th July 2023. In the meeting about 30 agendas were deliberated upon as Meeting could not be held for long time due to Covid and unavailability of members.
38. It is submitted that without any prior intimation or notice or giving any opportunity, the Office of Deputy Director of Education, South East issued Order No. 728-734 dated 26th September 2023 of termination of probation (simplicitor) of appointment as Principal in respect of Petitioner being violative· of Recruitment Rules for the post of Principal.
39. It is submitted that it is stated that the ground of termination is totally erroneous as the DPC considered the candidature of the petitioner in accordance with the recruitment rules applicable on the respondent no. 4 school i.e. the recruitment rules 1980 as amended by notification of 1991. In fact, the nominee of the DOE present during the DPC had also consented and recommended the candidature of petitioner who had served the school as PGT, Vice Principal and Officiating Principal for last 21 years.
40. In view of the submissions made above, it is submitted that the instant petition is has merit and the same may be allowed by this Court.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
41. The matter was heard at length with arguments advanced by the learned counsels on both sides. This Court has also perused the entire material on record. This Court has duly considered the factual scenario of the matter, judicial pronouncements relied on by the parties and pleadings presented by the learned counsel of the parties.
42. Heard the counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.
43. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is working with the respondent no. 4 since year 2001 and possessing all the qualifications was appointed as PGT English. In the year 2021, the petitioner was wrongly placed in the seniority, which was challenged by the petitioner and aggrieved by the same; the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Coordinate Bench of this Court. The Court disposed off in the said petition with the direction to the respondent no. 4 to consider the grievance of the petitioner in consultation with the respondent no. 2 and pass a reasoned order. Pursuant to which, the respondent no. 4 convened DPC meeting and appointed the petitioner as the principal. However, vide order dated 25th September 2023 and 26th September 2023, the office of respondent no. 3 wrongfully terminated the petitioner in violation of natural justice.
44. In rival contentions, the respondent no. 4 has acceded to the contentions of the petitioner submitting to the effect that the petitioner has been wrongfully terminated by the respondent no. 1 to 3.
45. The respondent no. 1 to 3 submitted that the petitioner has been wrongfully appointed as the principal of the respondent no. 4. The petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification and experience. Moreover, the appointment of the petitioner as teacher with the respondent no. 4 from 2001, does not bear any genuine proof. Furthermore, the impugned orders passed by the respondent have been passed after taking into account the fact that the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification for appointment as principal since, the feeder cadre for the position of principal is vice- principal with 10 years of experience at the said position.
46. This Court will adjudicate upon the issue – Whether the impugned orders merits interference of this Court.
47. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court has a very limited power to intervene into the working of the executive. The High Court under its writ jurisdiction shall not intervene with the working of the executive unless there is a prejudice caused to any party by the executive authority or the executive authority is not acting as per the mandate of a particular statute.
48. The writ jurisdiction is supervisory and the Court exercising it is not to act as an appellate Court. It is well settled that the writ court would not re-appreciate the evidence and substitute its own conclusion of fact for that recorded by the adjudicating body, be it a Court or a Tribunal. A finding of fact, howsoever erroneous, recorded by a Court or a Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Court or the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding.
49. The writ of certiorari cannot be issued in the present matter since for the issue of such a writ, there should be an error apparent on the face of it or goes to the root of the matter. However, no such circumstances are present in the instant petition.
50. The writ jurisdiction is supervisory and the court exercising it is not to act as an appellate court. It is well settled that the writ court would not re-appreciate the evidence and substitute its own conclusion of fact for that recorded by the adjudicating body, be it a court or a tribunal. A finding of fact, howsoever erroneous, recorded by a court or a tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the court or the tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding.
51. The position of law as to what must be observed by the High Court while exercising an issuance of writ in the form of certiorari can be fairly summed via two cardinal principles of law, firstly, the High Court does not exercise powers of an appellate authority and it does not review or peruse the evidence upon which the consideration of the inferior Court purports to have based. The writ of certiorari can be issued if an error of law is apparent on the face of the record. Secondly, in such cases, the Court has to take into account the circumstances and pass an order in equity and not as an appellate authority. Simply put certiorari is issued for correcting of errors of jurisdiction exercised by inferior Courts, for Courts violating principles of natural justice and acting illegally and, the Court issuing such a writ shall act in supervision and not appeal.
52. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das 2023 SCC OnLine SC 996 summarized the principle pertaining to writ of certiorari as follows:
“50. Before we close this matter, we would like to observe something important in the aforesaid context: Two cardinal principles of law governing exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution more particularly when it comes to issue of writ of certiorari.
51. The first cardinal principle of law that governs the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, more particularly when it comes to the issue of a writ of certiorari is that in granting such a writ, the High Court does not exercise the powers of Appellate Tribunal. It does not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior tribunal purports to be based. It demolishes the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous but does not substitute its own views for those of the inferior tribunal. The writ of certiorari can be issued if an error of law is apparent on the face of the record. A writ of certiorari, being a high prerogative writ, should not be issued on mere asking.
52. The second cardinal principle of exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is that in a given case, even if some action or order challenged in the writ petition is found to be illegal and invalid, the High Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction thereunder can refuse to upset it with a view to doing substantial justice between the parties. Article 226 of the Constitution grants an extraordinary remedy, which is essentially discretionary, although founded on legal injury. It is perfectly open for the writ court, exercising this flexible power to pass such orders as public interest dictates & equity projects. The legal formulations cannot be enforced divorced from the realities of the fact situation of the case. While administering law, it is to be tempered with equity and if the equitable situation demands after setting right the legal formulations, not to take it to the logical end, the High Court would be failing in its duty if it does not notice equitable consideration and mould the final order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. Any other approach would render the High Court a normal court of appeal which it is not.
53. The essential features of a writ of certiorari, including a brief history, have been very exhaustively explained by B.K. Mukherjea, J. in T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa, AIR 1954 SC 440. The Court held that a writ in the nature of certiorari could be issued in ‘all appropriate cases and in appropriate manner’ so long as the broad and fundamental principles were kept in mind. Those principles were delineated as follows:
“7. … In granting a writ of ‘certiorari’, the superior court does not exercise the powers of an appellate tribunal. It does not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior tribunal purports to be based. It demolishes the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous, but does not substitute its own views for those of the inferior tribunal …..
8. The supervision of the superior court exercised through writs of certiorari goes on two points, as has been expressed by Lord Summer in King v. Nat Bell Liquors Limited [[1922] 2 A.C. 128, 156]. One is the area of inferior jurisdiction and the qualifications and conditions of its exercise; the other is the observance of law in the course of its exercise. …. 9. Certiorari may lie and is generally granted when a court has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction.”
54. Relying on T.C. Basappa (supra), the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Hari Vishnu Kamath (supra), laid down the following propositions as well established: “(1) Certiorari will be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction, as when an inferior court or tribunal acts without jurisdiction or in excess of it, or fails to exercise it. (2) Certiorari will also be issued when the court or tribunal acts illegally in the exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction, as when it decides without giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, or violates the principles of natural justice. (3) The court issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. One consequence of this is that the court will not review findings of fact reached by the inferior court or tribunal, even if they be erroneous.”
55. This Court explained that a court which has jurisdiction over a subject matter has jurisdiction to decide wrong as well as right, and when the Legislature does not choose to confer a right of appeal against that decision, it would be defeating its purpose and policy if a superior court were to rehear the case on the evidence and substitute its own finding in certiorari.

56. In Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, AIR 1964 SC 477, P.B. Gajendragadkar, CJ., speaking for the Constitution Bench, placed the matter beyond any position of doubt by holding that a writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals. The observations of this Court in para 7 are worth taking note of:
“7. The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Art. 226 has been frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals : these are cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Art. 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised…..”
57. In Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chandra Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675, a Bench of two Judges held that the certiorari jurisdiction though available, should not be exercised as a matter of course. The High Court would be justified in refusing the writ of certiorari if no failure of justice had been occasioned. In exercising the certiorari jurisdiction, the procedure ordinarily followed by the High Court is to command the inferior court or tribunal to certify its record or proceedings to the High Court for its inspection so as to enable the High Court to determine, whether on the face of the record the inferior court has committed any of the errors as explained by this Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque, AIR 1955 SC 233 occasioning failure of justice.
58. From the aforesaid, it could be said in terms of a jurisdictional error that want of jurisdiction may arise from the nature of the subject matter so that the inferior court or tribunal might not have the authority to enter on the inquiry. It may also arise from the absence of some essential preliminary or jurisdictional fact. Where the jurisdiction of a body depends upon a preliminary finding of fact in a proceeding for a writ of certiorari, the court may determine, whether or not that finding of fact is correct. The reason is that by wrongly deciding such a fact, the court or tribunal cannot give itself jurisdiction.

59. In Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission, [1969] 2 A.C. 147, the House of Lords has given a very broad connotation to the concept of ‘jurisdictional error’. It has been laid down that a tribunal exceeds jurisdiction not only at the threshold when it enters into an inquiry which it is not entitled to undertake, but it may enter into an enquiry within its jurisdiction in the first instance and then do something which would deprive it of its jurisdiction and render its decision a nullity. In the words of Lord Reid: “But there are many cases where, although the tribunal had jurisdiction to enter on the enquiry, it has done or failed to do something in the course of the enquiry which is of such a nature that its decision is a nullity. It may have given its decision in bad faith. It may have made a decision which it had no power to make. It may have failed in the course of the enquiry to comply with the requirements of natural justice. It may in perfect good faith have misconstrued the provisions giving it power to act so that it failed to deal with the question remitted to it and decided some question which was not remitted to it. It may have refused to take into account something which it was required to take into account. Or it may have based its decision on some matter which, under the provisions setting it up, it had no right to take into account. I do not intend this list to be exhaustive.”
60. So far as the errors of law are concerned, a writ of certiorari could be issued if an error of law is apparent on the face of the record. To attract the writ of certiorari, a mere error of law is not sufficient. It must be one which is manifest or patent on the face of the record. Mere formal or technical errors, even of law, are not sufficient, so as to attract a writ of certiorari. As reminded by this Court time and again, this concept is indefinite and cannot be defined precisely or exhaustively and so it has to be determined judiciously on the facts of each case. The concept, according to this Court in K.M. Shanmugam v. The S.R.V.S. (P) Ltd., AIR 1963 SC 1626, ‘is comprised of many imponderables… it is not capable of precise definition, as no objective criterion could be laid down, the apparent nature of the error, to a large extent, being dependent upon the subjective element.’ A general test to apply, however, is that no error could be said to be apparent on the face of the record if it is not ‘self-evident’ or ‘manifest’. If it requires an examination or argument to establish it, if it has to be established by a long drawn out process of reasoning, or lengthy or complicated arguments, on points where there may considerably be two opinions, then such an error would cease to be an error of law. (See : Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, AIR 1960 SC 137.)

61. However, in our opinion, such a test should not be applied in a straitjacket formula and may fail because what might be considered by one Judge as an error self-evident, might not be considered so by another Judge.
62. At this stage, it may not be out of place to remind ourselves of the observations of this Court in Syed Yakoob (supra) on this point, which are as follows: “Where it is manifest or clear that the conclusion of law recorded by an inferior court or tribunal is based on an obvious misinterpretation of the relevant statutory provision, or something in ignorance of it, or may be even in disregard of it, or is expressly founded on reasons which are wrong in law, the said conclusion can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. Certiorari would also not lie to correct mere errors of fact even though such errors may be apparent on the face of the record. The writ jurisdiction is supervisory and the court exercising it is not to act as an appellate court. It is well settled that the writ court would not re-appreciate the evidence and substitute its own conclusion of fact for that recorded by the adjudicating body, be it a court or a tribunal. A finding of fact, howsoever erroneous, recorded by a court or a tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the court or the tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. It is also well settled that adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the tribunal and these points cannot be agitated before the writ court.”
63. In the aforesaid context, it will be profitable for us to refer to the decision of this Court in the case of Indian Overseas Bank v. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers’ Union, (2000) 4 SCC 245 : AIR 2000 SC 1508. This Court observed as under: “… The findings of fact recorded by a fact-finding authority duly constituted for the purpose and which ordinarily should be considered to have become final, cannot be disturbed for the mere reason of having been based on materials or evidence not sufficient or credible in the opinion of the writ Court to warrant those findings at any rate, as long as they are based upon such materials which are relevant for the purpose or even on the ground that there is yet another view which can be reasonably and possibly undertaken. …”
64. However, we may clarify that findings of fact based on ‘no evidence’ or purely on surmises and conjectures or which are perverse points could be challenged by way of a certiorari as such findings could be regarded as an error of law.
65. Thus, from the various decisions referred to above, we have no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that a writ of certiorari is a high prerogative writ and should not be issued on mere asking. For the issue of a writ of certiorari, the party concerned has to make out a definite case for the same and is not a matter of course. To put it pithily, certiorari shall issue to correct errors of jurisdiction, that is to say, absence, excess or failure to exercise and also when in the exercise of undoubted jurisdiction, there has been illegality. It shall also issue to correct an error in the decision or determination itself, if it is an error manifest on the face of the proceedings. By its exercise, only a patent error can be corrected but not also a wrong decision. It should be well remembered at the cost of repetition that certiorari is not appellate but only supervisory.
66. A writ of certiorari, being a high prerogative writ, is issued by a superior court in respect of the exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial functions by another authority when the contention is that the exercising authority had no jurisdiction or exceeded the jurisdiction. It cannot be denied that the tribunals or the authorities concerned in this batch of appeals had the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. However, the argument would be that the tribunals had acted arbitrarily and illegally and that they had failed to give proper findings on the facts and circumstances of the case. We may only say that while adjudicating a writ-application for a writ of certiorari, the court is not sitting as a court of appeal against the order of the tribunals to test the legality thereof with a view to reach a different conclusion. If there is any evidence, the court will not examine whether the right conclusion is drawn from it or not. It is a well-established principle of law that a writ of certiorari will not lie where the order or decision of a tribunal or authority is wrong in matter of facts or on merits. (See : King v. Nat Bell Liquors Ltd., [1922] 2 A.C. 128 (PC))”

53. Before adverting on the merits of the case, this Court shall reproduce the impugned orders. The order dated 25th September 2023 has been reproduced herein below:
“1. Whereas, the Daisy Dales Senior Secondary School, East of Kailash, New Delhi 65 is a Private Unaided Recognized School under the provision of Delhi Education Act and Rule (DSEAR), 1973. The school is under obligation to follow the provisions of DSEAR, 1973 and various instructions/ directions passed by the Directorate of the Education, which is the regulatory authority
of such schools.
2. And Whereas, an inspection of the said school was conducted on 14.06.2023 under rule 190, 191 & 192 of DSEAR, 1973. The copy of the Inspection report has already been shared with the School authority vide letter No. DE 15 (1478)/PSB/2023/76163-6165 dated 07.07.2023 and vide e-mail dated 07.07.2023 from this branch vide which the school authority was requested to explain the lapses pointed out in the aforesaid Inspection report within 07
days.
3. And Whereas, the inspection of school record has revealed that Ms. Suraksha Jagirdar, the then PGT (English) ·was promoted/appointed as Principal of the School on PROBATION for one year vide order dated 6-10-2023 by unduly jumping the Post of Vice Principal which happens to be the Feeder Cadre for promotion to the post of Principal, in flagrant violation of the Recruitment Rules meant for Principal as notified from time to time by Directorate of Education GNCT of Delhi.
4. And Whereas, the Recruitment Rules for the post of Principal, as was in-force at the relevant time, clearly provide that only Vice-Principal having completed 10 years regular service is eligible for promotion to the post of Principal which makes it clear that the Vice~ Principal is the Feeder Cadre for promotion to the post of Principal and only a Vice-Principal can be considered for promotion to the post of Principal.
5. And Whereas, the provisions of Rule 98 of Delhi School Education Rules 1973 provides that the Appointing Authority of the employees of Unaided recognised schools shall be managing committee meaning thereby that all appointments shall be made by the managing committee only but it has been observed that the promotion/ appointment in respect of Ms. Suraksha Jagidar has been made without any approval whatsoever of Appointing Authority and the promotion/ appointment has been made by chairman in flagrant violation of the provisions of rules 98 od DSEAR 1973.
6. And Whereas, it is amply clear that the promotion / appointment of Ms. Suraksha Jagidar PGT (Eng)to the post of principal is void ab-initio being violative of the provisions of the Recruitment Rules keeping in with the provisions of section 8(1) of Delhi School Education Act 1973 read in conjunction with rule 100 of Delhi School Education Rules 1973 and also violative of provisions of rule 98 of DESR 1973.
7. And Whereas, termination of the employees of private unaided recognised schools on the ground of being ab- initio ineligible/ violative of Recruitment Rules by the Directorate of Education has been upheld as legal and valid by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in many cases. For example:-

i} I find nothing illegal in the letter dated 22.2.1983 issued by the
school, in compliance with the Directive dated 28.12.1982 issued
to the school by the Director of Education. The rule is discharged. Writ Petition is dismissed. (Ref- CWP No. 1389 j 1983
Mrs. P.L. Agarwal vs LG Delhi-DoJ-26-04-2004.

ii) Similarly in WP(C} No. 15/1977 Smt. Krishna Vs. H.K. Arora decided on 19.1.1996, it was held that as per the mandate of
Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and the Rules framed thereunder, a language teacher must possess the minimum qualifications as prescribed. Non-approval by the Competent Authority to the continued employment of an unqualified teacher
was upheld to be legal and valid.
8. And Whereas, it is equally well settled at law that a wrong cannot be allowed to perpetuate and should be discontinued as soon as it comes to the notice of authorities.
9. And Whereas, without any prejudice to above, it has also been
observed that a bare perusal of Service Book of the said Ms. Suraksha Jagirdar creates a doubt on her very initial appointment in the School as the same appears to have been tempered with / interpolated at many places. Few instances are given below:-

i. Entry of initial appointment in respect of Ms. Suraksha
Jagirdar is shown w.e.f. 01 -07-2001 as Post Graduate Teacher
(Eng) but the said initial entry is verified on 01-07-2009 i.e. after a gap of 08 years whereas Service has to be mandatory verified every year. The provisions of OM No.180- 19/7 /2013(Estt.(L) dated 23/0ctober/2013 clearly provide that “The provisions of SR 199 and 202 require that every step in a Government Servant ‘s official life must be recorded in the Service Book and each entry must be attested by the Head of Office and that it shall be the duty of every Head of Office to initiate action to show the Service Book to the Govt. Servant under his administrative control every year. The Govt. Servant shall inter-alia ensure that their services has been duly verified and certified as such (SR 202). These rules
undoubtedly are applicable on the employees of Unaided Recognised Schools in the light of provisions contained Under
Section 10 of Delhi School Education Act, 1973.
ii. Appointment date in the leave record is shown as 01-07-2002.
iii. Not only this, but no entry for the years 01.07.2002, 01.07.2003, 01.07.2004, 01.07.2005, 01.07.2006 and 01.07.2007 finds mention in the service book.
iv. All these facts give rise to the presumption that the date of appointment is either wrongly mentioned with malafide intentions or pre-dated in the service book or is tempered with.
v. Similarly, the leave account indicates that it was opened in September 2008 but these entries were crossed and thereafter, 6 pages have been left blank and entries again started w.e.f. 01.01.2008. Act of leaving 6 pages blank appears to be deliberate so as to cover-up the period from 2001 onwards, subsequently. The service record further contains a copy of purported Appointment Order which is without any signature thereon or dispatch number. The said unsigned paper can, be no stretch of imagination, be construed as letter of appoimtment.

10. Now,Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances narrated here-in-above, the Competent Authority is of the considered opinion that the Probation in respect of Ms. Suraksha Jagirdar is liable to be terminated simpliciter fortwith and her appointment as principal is cancelled With all Intent and purposes and the same is accordingly ordered with immediate effect. As a consequence thereto, the said Ms. Suraksha Jagirdar is hereby reverted to the post of PGT (English) WITH all intent and Purpose and is directed to report for duty as PGT (English) and to discharge the duties as assigned to her by the special Officer so appointed by the Competent Authority. This is without any prejudice to further inquiry on her appointment as PGT subsequent Irregularities committed by her as noticed in the official record.
11. This issues with the approval of the competent authority/ director of Education GNCTD.
Ordered accordingly.”

54. The impugned order dated 26th September 2023 has been enunciated herein below:
1. Whereas, the Daisy Dales Senior Secondary School, East of Kailash, New Delhi 65 is a Pr.f.vate Unaided Recognized School under the provision of uelhi Education Act and Rule (DSEAR), 1973. The school is under obligation to follow the provisions of DSEAR, 1973 and various instructions/ directions passed by the Directorate of the Education, which is the regulatory authority
of such schools.
2.And Whereas, an inspection of the said school was conducted on 14.06.2023 under rule 190, 191 & 192 of DSEAR, 1973. The copy of the Inspection report has already been shared with the School authority vide letter No. DE 15 (1478)/PSB/2023/76163-6165 dated 07.07.2023 and vide e-mail dated 07.07.2023 from this branch vide which the school authority was requested to explain the lapses pointed out in the aforesaid Inspection report within 07
days.
3. And Whereas, the inspection of school record has revealed that Ms. Suraksha Jagirdar, the then PGT (English) was promoted/ appointed as Principal of the School on PROBATION for one year vide order dated 07-10-2022 by unduly jumping the Post of Vice Principal which happens to be the Feeder Cadre for promotion to the post of Principal, in flagrant violation of the Recruitment Rules meant for Principal as notified from time to time by Directorate of Education GNCT of Delhi.
4. And Whereas, the Recruitment Rules for the post of Principal, as was in-force at the relevant time, clearly provide that only Vice-Principal having completed 10 years regular service is eligible for promotion to the post of Principal which makes it clear that the Vice-Principal is the Feeder Cadre for promotion to the post of Principal and only a Vice Principal can be considered for promotion to the post of Principal.
5. And Whereas, the provisions of Rule 98 of Delhi School Education Rules 1973 provides that the Appointing Authority of the employees of Unaided Recognised Schools shall be Managing Committee meaning thereby that all appointments shall be made by the Managing Committee only but it has been observed that the
Promotion/ Appointment in respect of Ms. Suraksha Jagirdar has been made without any approval whatsoever of the Appointing Authority and the promotion/ appointment has been made by Chairman in flagrant violation of the provisions of Rules 98 of DSEAR 1973.
6. And Whereas, it is amply clear that the promotion/ appointment of Ms.Suraksha Jagirdar, PGT (Eng) to the post of Principal is void ab-initiobeing violative of provisions of Recruitment Rules keeping in with the provisions of Section 8(1) of Delhi School Education Act 1973 read in conjunction “with Rule 100 of Delhi School Education Rules 1973 and also violative of provisions of Rule 98 of DSER 1973.
7. And Whereas, termination of the employees of Private Unaided
Recognised Schools on the ground of being ab-initio ineligible/violative of Recruitment Rules by the Directorate of Education has been upheld as legal and valid by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in many cases. For example:-
i) I find nothing illegal in the letter dated 22.2.1983 issued by the
school, in compliance with the Directive dated 28.12.1982 issued
to the school by the Director of Education. The rule is discharged. Writ Petition is dismissed. (Ref- CWP No. 1389 I 1983 Mrs. P.L. Agarwal vs LG Delhi-DoJ-26-04-2004.
ii) Simila.rly in WP(C) No. 15/1977 Smt. Krishna Vs. H.K. Arora
decided on 19.1.1996, it was held that as per the mand8.te of
Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and the Rules framed thereunder, a language teacher must possess the minimum qualifications as prescribed. Non-approval by the Competent Authority to the continued employment of an unqualified teacher
was upheld to be legal and valid.

8. And Whereas, it is equally well settled at law that a wrong cannot be
allowed to perpetuate and should be discontinued as soon as it comes to the notice of authorities.
9. And Whereas, without any prejudice to above, it has also seen
observed that a bare perusal of Service Book of the said Ms. Suraksha Jagirdar creates a doubt on her very initial appointment in the School as the same appears to have been tempered with/interpolated at many places. Few instances are given below:-

Entry of initial appointment in respect of Ms. Suraksha (English) is shown w.e.f. 01-07-2001 as Post Graduate Teacher but the said initial entry is verified on 01-07-2009 i.e. a ten a gap of 08 years whereas Service has to be mandatory verified every year. The provisions of OM No. 180- 19/7/2013(Estt.(L) dated 23/0ctober/2013 clearly provide t hat “The provisions of SR 199 and 202 require that every step in a Government Servant’s official life must be recorded in the Service Book and each entry must be attested by the Head of Office and that it shall be the duty of every Head of Office to initiate action to show the Service Book to the Govt. Servant Under his administrative control every year. The Govt. Servants shall inter-alia ensure that their services has been duly verified and certified as such (SR 202). These rules undoubtedly are applicable on the employees of Unaided Recognised Schools in the light of provisions contained Under
Section 10 of Oelhi School Education Act, 1973.

ii. Appointment date in the leave record is shown as 01-07-2002.
iii. Not only this, but no entry for the years 01.07.2002,
01.07.2003, 01.07.2004, 01.07.2005, 01.07.2006 and
01.07.2007 finds mention in the service book.

iv. All these facts give rise to the presumption that the date of
appointment is either wrongly mentioned with malafide
intentions or pre-dated in the service book or is tempered
with.
v. Similarly, the leave account indicates that it was opened in
September 2008 but these entries were crossed and, thereafter, 6 pages have been left blank and entries again started w.e.f. 01.01.2008. Act of leaving 6 pages blank appears to be deliberate so as to cover-up the period from 2001 onwards, subsequently. The service record further contains a copy of purported Appointment Order which is without any signature thereon or dispatch number. The said unsigned paper can, by no stretch of imagination, be construed as letter of appointment.
10. Now, Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances narrated here-in-above, the Competent Authority is of the considered opinion that the Probation in respect of Ms. Suraksha Jagirdar is liable to be terminated simpliciter forthwith and her appointment as principal is cancelled with all intent and purposes and the same is ordered accordingly ordered with immediate effect. as a consequence therto, the said Ms. Suraksha Jagirdari is hereby reverted to the post of PGT (english) with all intent and purposes and is directed to report for duty asPGT and discharge the duties assigned to her by the special officer so appointed bt the competent authority. this is without any prejudice to further inquiry on her appointment as PGT and subsequent irregularities committed by her as noticed in the official record.

11. this issues with the approval of Competent Authority /Director of Education GNCTD.
Ordered accordingly”

55. Upon perusal of the aforesaid order, it can be inferred that the respondent no. 2 have held that the inspection of the respondent no. 4 revealed the petitioner was promoted/appointed as principal of the school on probation of one year vide order dated 7th October 2022 by wrongly skipping the position of Vice- Principal and was directly appointed as Principal.
56. Moreover, as stipulated by Rule 98 of DSEAR, the Appointing Authority of the employees of the unaided recognized school is Managing Committee. In the case of the petitioner, the appointment has been made without the approval of the Appointing Authority, therefore the appointment of the petitioner is in violation of the Rule 98 of DSEAR.
57. It is further stated that the petitioner’s appointment is shown from 1st July 2001 as PGT, however there is gap of 8 years w.r.t. the entry in the service book and the initial entry is from 1st July 2009. Hence, the respondent is of the view that the petitioner is terminated from her appointment as Principal.
58. The petitioner was appointed in terms of Minutes of meeting dated 1st October 2022, the same has been reproduced herein below:
“2. A meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee, consisting of following members was held on 01.10.2022 in the chamber of the Chairman, Daisy Dales. Sr. Sec. Pvt recognised Unaided School at 11.30 under relevant rule of DESAR 1973.
Following members were present:
S.No. Name designation

1. Prof. f. S Suri Chairman

2. Dr.Neeraj Deputy Director of Education,

3. Mr. Rishi Raj Gautam Vice-Principal (Retd.)- Educationist

4. Mr. Vljay Sandhi Govt. Officer (Retd.) –Educationist ii

3. After examinine all records of the file, it was found that post of Vice-Principal is vacant as no promotion has been done for the post of Vice-Principal. On some records of the senior most
candidate at some places it was written Vice- Principal for her designation that fact and has been edited accordingly by the school.

4. The school has Informed that the strength or school is continually decreasing and has now come to 755 as on date post Covid-19. ln view of this fact the school does not require filling both the posts In view to contain financial burden.

5. Vide recruitment order no. F. No. OE./15/2.86/ASB/2022/901-907 dated 09/06/2022, it has been conveyed that in respect of recognised Pvt Unaided schools, recruitment rules notified vide
F.32/84/Gen./78-80/3721-4161, dt. 25.02.1980 and Amended vide No. F.32/1/84/Gen./91/98- 400, dated 29.01.1991 would apply.

6, Vide recruitment rules .notified no. F.32/84/Gen./78 80/3721-4161, dt. 25.02.1980 and Amended vide No. F.S2/l/84/Gen.j91/98-400, dated 29.01.1991 consideration zone for the post of the principal is out of vice principal /PGTs.
7. School management certified that in past there had been a court case on the issue of seniority of two senior most candidates that has baen resolved, as both parties have withdrawn the case and the petitioner Mrs. Suraksha Jagirdar has been declared Senior Most by the school and the other party has also agreed to that and signed the seniority list revised and prepared by the school as on June 10, 2022.
9. the management of thr school placed before the members of DPC
1. Service Book of the candidate
2. 5 Years ACR
3. Vigilance Clearance Report
4. Undertaking of court case
5. Integrity report
6. Work and conduct report
7.
10. Having examined the above facts and do Cllments DPC found and recommended Ms. Suraksha Jagirdar Senior most and eligible to be promoted to the post of Principal subject to the approval of the competent authority in view thee above facts.”

59. The DPC consisting of Chairman, Deputy Director of Education, Central (DE Nominee), Educationist I and Educationist II was constituted, DPC held that the petitioner being the senior- most person in the school has been promoted to the post of Principal. The said decision is subject to the approval of the Competent Authority.
60. An office record dated 7th October 2022 has been reproduced herein below:
“Consequent upon the recommendation of the DPC held on 01.10.2022. Managing Committee of Daisy Dales Sr. Sec. School, East of Kailash New Delhi is pleased to promote Ms. Suraksha Jagirdar, PGT (English) to the past of Principal in the grade of 15600-39100 GP 7600 from the date of issue of this order on the following terms and conditions:
– That she will be on one year probation from the date of issuing this order ie 07.10.2022.
– That she will the Head of School and shall perform administrative and academic responsibilities and all other duties as enshrined in the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 as amended from time to time.
– That she will maintain best academic standards and promote curricular and co-curricular activities in the school.
– That she will maintain conducive and learner friendly environment in the school.
– That she will plan and device academic activities for the upgradation of teachers academic standards.
– That her pay and allowances are fixed at minimum of the pay scale of the Principal as per 6th Central Pay Commission.
– That she will work under the guidance of the Managing Committee of School.
– That she will be superannuated on attaining the age of sixty years.
– That she will display absolute integrity towards the school, staff students, and the management of the DDSSS.”

61. As per the aforesaid order, the petitioner was appointed as Principal with one year of probation and states the terms and conditions of the appointment of the petitioner.
62. Now adverting to the notifications pertaining to the appointment of the principal in schools. This Court will reproduce the relevant gazette dated 7th April 1980 governing the appointment of the principal is reproduced herein below:
DELHI GAZETTE: EXTRAORDINARY DUCATION DEPARTMENT NOTIFICATION
Delhi, The 7th April, 1980

No. F.32/1/84/Gen./78-80/3721-4161 – In exercise of the powers conferred vide Sec.8(1) and
Section 13 of Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (18 of 1973) read with rule 100 of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 made under the said Act, the Administrator of Delhi hereby makes the Recruitment Rules for the post of Principal and Vice-Principal in Recognized Pvt. Schools including Unaided Minority Schools in Consultation with the Delhi School Education Advisory Board and Central Board of Secondary as per Annexure “A” & “B”.

These Recruitment Rules shall come into force with immediate effect.

ANNEXURE “A”

Recruitment Rules for the post of Principal working in Recognized Schools in the Union Territory of Delhi.

Name of the Post
Scale of Pay
Whether Selection Post or Non Selection
Age Limit for Recruitment
Educational Qualifications
1
2
3
4
5
Principal
Rs. 1100-50-1600
Selection
A. Not exceeding 45 years. Relaxable for 5 years for a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe.
B. Age relaxable in case of a candidate belonging to the same school.
Note: The crucial date for determining the age limit shall be the closing date for receipt of application from the candidate.
(i) Master’s degree with at least II Division from a recognised University or equivalent.
(ii) Degree in Teaching Education from a recognised University or equivalent.
(iii) 10 years candidate belonging to the same school.
Note: The crucial date for determining the age limit shall be the closing date for receipt of application from the candidate experience of teaching as Vice-President TGT in Hr. Sec. School / Sr. Sec. School or inter college.
*Condition of Second Division relaxable in the case of candidate belonging to the same school and also in case of SC/ST candidates.
Desirable:–
(i) Experience in Administration charge of recognised High/Sr. Sec. school/ inter college
(ii) Doctorate Degree
(iii) M. Ed. Degree from a recg. University.
Whether age and educational qualifications prescribed for direct recruits will be applicable in case of pro motion.
Period of probation if any.
Method of rctt.
In case of promotion deputation/ transfer grades from which transfer/deputation/promotion to be made.
If a Selection Committee exists what is its composition
6
7
8
9
10
1 Age: no
one year
By promotion failing
Promotion out of vice principal/ PGTs
The Selection committee as prescribed under the Delhi School Education Act & Rules.

Note: – Competent Authority may relax any of the essential qualifications in case of candidate belonging to the same school after recording reasons thereof.”

63. As per the aforesaid notification, the petitioner has not rightly appointed the respondent no. 4 since the promotion to the post of the principal is from promotion from the post of Vice Principal with completed 10 years of service at the post of Vice – Principal. Moreover, as per the note in the aforesaid recruitment rules there is no reason recorded in writing by the competent authority to appoint the candidate to the position of Principal.
64. Adverting to the notification dated 29th January 1991 governing the appointment to the position of principal has been reproduced herein below:
The notification as amended in year 1991 is as under:

“Recruitment Rules for Recognised Aided/Unaided Schools for the Post of
Principal
Vide Notification F.32/1/84.Gen./78-80/3721-4161, dt. 25-02-1980
And Amended Vide No. F.32/1/84.Gen./91/98-400, dt. 29-01-1991

1.
Name of the post:
Principal
2.
Scale of pay:
Rs. 1100-50-1600 (Pre-revised) Rs. 10,000-15,200 (revised as per V.C.P.C)
3.
Whether selection post or non-selection:
Selection
4.
Age limit for direct recruitment:
(a) Not exceeding 45 years (Relaxable by 5 years for a candidate belonging to SC/ST

(b) Age relaxable in case of the candidate belonging to the same school
Note: The crucial date of determining the age limit shall be closing date for receipt of application from the candidates.
5.
Educational Qualifications:
(i) Master Degree with at least II Division from a recognized University or equivalent. Condition of Second Division relaxable in the case of candidates belonging to the same school and also in case of SC/ST candidates.

(ii) Degree in Teaching/Education from a recognised University or equivalent.

(iii) 10 years’ experience of teaching as Vice-Principal, PGT in a Hr. Sec. Sen. School or Inter College. Desirables:
i. Experience in Administrative charge of a recognized High Sen. Sec. School or Inter College.
ii. Doctorate degree.
iii. M.Ed degree from a recognized University.
6.
Whether age and educational qualifications prescribed for direct recruits will be applicable in case of promotion:
Age: No
Qualification: Yes except/ indicated in as Col. No. 5
7.
Period of probation, if any:
One year
8.
Method of recruitment:
By promotion failing which by
direct recruitment.
9.
In case of promotion/deputation/transfer grades from which deputation/ promotion to be made:
Promotion out of Vice- Principal/PGTs.
Note: Note: Competent Authority may relax any of the essential qualifications in
case of candidate belonging to the same school after recording reasons therefore.
10.
If a selection committee exists, what is its composition:
The Selection Committee as prescribed under the Delhi School Education Act & Rules.

65. Upon perusal of the aforesaid notification, it is ascertained that the promotion to the position of the principal even after the amendment shall be from the position of Vice- Principal only. Moreover, it stipulates that the Competent Authority may relax any of the essential qualifications in case of candidate belonging to the same school after recording in writing.
66. In the instant petition, the petitioner does not fulfill the eligibility criteria to be appointed to the p