Kum Poonam Sharma v. Shri Himanshu Gupta & ANR.

$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 23.04.2026 + KUM POONAM SHARMA .....Petitioner Through:

Ms. Deeptakirti Verma, Adv.

versus SHRI HIMANSHU GUPTA & ANR.

.....Respondents Through:

Mr. Sandeep Jindal, Ms. Akansha Bharti, Advs. for R2 along with Chairman & Principal of the School Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat (SC) along with Mrs. Tania Ahlawat, Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL) 1.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging wilful disobedience/ non-compliance of the directions contained in the judgment dated 03.02.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 4881/2013. The said judgment was rendered in the context of the petitioner's grievance that respondent no. 3 therein had been promoted as PGT (History) in preference to the petitioner, despite the said respondent being ineligible on account of having an "average" grading in the ACR, in contrast to the petitioner's better grading.

2.

In the said judgment dated 03.02.2023, it was held/ observed by this Court as under:-

"29. Since the respondent No.3 had been graded as "average" in the ACRs for three years out of the five years under consideration, and admittedly the benchmark for promotion was "good" grading, clearly respondent No.3 was not eligible to be considered for promotion on the date when the vacancy arose or on the date when the DPC was constituted. Therefore, the petitioner who had been graded as "good" in the ACRs for the said five years under consideration, was eligible to be promoted as PGT on the said date.

30. At the same time, the right of respondent No.3 to be communicated the ACRs where he had been graded as "average", cannot be overlooked. The respondent No.3 was not only entitled to be communicated such ACRs, but was also entitled to file an appeal with the Director of Education, with respect thereto, since the school in question is an aided school, receiving aid to the extent of 95% from the Government of NCT of Delhi." 3.

Despite the aforesaid observation, this Court did not deem it appropriate to interfere with the appointment of the respondent no.3 in W.P.(C) 4881/2013 despite finding that the petitioner herein has a superior right vis-a-vis the appointment of the said respondent. The Court ultimately directed as under:- 4.

Vide the previous order dated 02.04.2026 passed in the present proceedings, it was directed as under:-

5.

Today, it is informed that pursuant to the aforesaid order, meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee ("DPC") was convened on 20.04.2026 and again on 22.04.2026. The sum and substance of the decision taken by the DPC is that there was a difficulty in promoting the petitioner on account of non-availability of the post, considering that the said post has currently been occupied by the respondent no.3 (as in W.P.(C) 4881/2013). 6.

Concededly, this very ground was urged by the respondent no.1 in the

SLP filed before the Supreme Court. However, as noticed in the order dated 02.04.2026 passed in the present proceedings, the said SLP came to be dismissed even otherwise.

7.

A holistic reading of the judgment dated 03.02.2023 (of which contempt is alleged in the present proceedings) makes it clear that the petitioner cannot be denied promotion to the said post [i.e. PGT (History)] considering the inherent injustice which has been caused by providing the said post to the respondent no.3 (in the said writ petition i.e. in W.P.(C) 4881/2013) in view of the adverse observation as regards the ineligibility of the said respondent no.3. As such, the denial of promotion to the petitioner is not in consonance with the judgment dated 03.02.2023. 8.

In any event, the alleged non-availability of vacancy is not a legal impediment so as to justify not giving the relief to the petitioner in derogation of the directions contained in Paragraphs 36 and 37 of the said judgment dated 03.02.2023.

9.

As such, denial of promotion to the petitioner tantamounts to the wilful disobedience/ non-compliance of the directions contained in the judgment dated 03.02.2023.

10.

At this stage, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submits that, in the event the aided school branch of the Department of Education sanctions an additional post in the grade of PGT (History), a fresh DPC shall thereafter be convened in compliance with the directions contained in the judgment dated 03.02.2023, to consider the petitioner's case for promotion to the said post.

11.

Let immediate action be taken by respondent no. 1 in the aforesaid terms, taking into consideration the statement of respondent no. 2 that,

subject to the above, it has no objection whatsoever to the petitioner's promotion. Let the necessary promotion to which the petitioner is entitled, be granted accordingly.

12.

Let the aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of four weeks from today.

13.

The petition is disposed of in the above terms. 14.

List for reporting compliance on 29.05.2026.

15.

In case the aforesaid directions remain uncomplied, the same shall be construed as breach on the part of the respondent no.1/ Directorate of Education with the orders passed by this Court entailing action under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

16.

The Chairman and the Principal of the concerned School/ respondent no.2 shall remain personally present in Court on the next date of hearing. 17.

Needless to say, the petitioner shall be entitled to revive present petition if the above directions are not complied with. SACHIN DATTA, J APRIL 23, 2026/uk