Raj Kumar Singh vs Directorate Of Education Nct Of Delhi & … on 20 May, 2026

May 26, 2026

Delhi High Court – Orders

Raj Kumar Singh vs Directorate Of Education Nct Of Delhi & … on 20 May, 2026

1. The Petitioner, a Post Graduate Teacher (Physics), invokes the writ
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution impugning (i)
the Annual Confidential Report1/Annual Performance Appraisal Report2 for
the year 2016-2017, whereby he was graded “Average” and later “Good”,
and (ii) order dated 31st January, 2023, passed by the Deputy Director of
Education, District South East, insofar as it upgrades his APAR for 2016-
2017 only from “Average” to “Good”, which is below the benchmark of
“Very Good” prescribed for grant of Modified Assured Career Progression.3

SPONSORED

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

1
“ACR”

“APAR”

“MACP”

W.P.(C) 13385/2024 Page 1 of 14

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.

Factual matrix

3. The Petitioner was appointed as PGT (Physics) in August 2008 in an
aided school, Respondent No.4, and has since rendered more than ten years
of continuous regular service.

4. The Petitioner suffers from locomotor disability to the extent of 52%,
and is a person with disability within the meaning of the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities Act, 2016. In September 2017, he was entrusted, in
addition to Physics, with the responsibility of teaching Chemistry to Classes
XI and XII despite not holding a Master’s degree in Chemistry, contrary to
the Recruitment Rules notified on 04th November, 1999 which require a
PGT to possess a Master’s degree in the subject concerned.

5. The Petitioner, by letter dated 14th September, 2017, expressed his
apprehension that he was not adequately equipped to teach Chemistry at that

4
“DoE”

“DSE Rules”

W.P.(C) 13385/2024 Page 2 of 14

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
level and requested that he be relieved of this responsibility to avoid
prejudice to students. This communication led to issuance of show-cause
notices dated 28th September, 2017 and 17th October, 2017 by the school
alleging violation of Rule 123 of the DSE Rules, followed by a warning
letter dated 09th November, 2017 pursuant to a Managing Committee
meeting.

6. Complaining of harassment and irregular disciplinary action, the
Petitioner approached the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities. By
order dated 18th June, 2018, the Commissioner recorded that the warning
issued to the Petitioner is not a penalty and “shall have no role in the grant
of MACP or promotion etc.”, and further directed that the Petitioner shall
not be subjected to harassment on the ground of his disability and must be
given reasonable accommodation. The Respondents, including the DoE,
accepted this position in their correspondence before the Commissioner.

7. The Petitioner completed 10 years of regular service as PGT Physics
on 04th August, 2018 and became entitled, subject to eligibility, for 1st
financial upgradation under MACP w.e.f. 06th August, 2018. He addressed
multiple representations between 2019 and 2020 seeking grant of MACP,
and again approached the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, who
by order dated 26th August, 2021 recommended that Respondent No.4
process his case for grant of MACP from the due date and directed the
Directorate to ensure compliance.

8. The Petitioner’s case is that he was informed for the first time by
letter dated 17th July, 2021 from the Head of School that his ACR for 2016-
2017 was graded “Average” and for 2017-2018 “Good” and that both
gradings were below the benchmark of “Very Good” required for MACP;

W.P.(C) 13385/2024 Page 3 of 14

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
and that on this basis his claim for MACP had been declined. The said
communication did not furnish the reasons for these gradings nor the date on
which they were recorded.

9. The Petitioner asserts, and the Respondents subsequently admit in a
letter dated 19th June, 2023, that no meeting of the Managing Committee
was ever held to review his ACR for the year 2016-2017, as mandated by
Rule 112(4) of the DSE Rules. He further contends that the ACR for 2016-
2017 is, therefore, non-est in law and cannot be used to his prejudice.

10. In 2018, the management of Respondent No.4 school was taken over
by the Directorate of Education and an Authorised Officer came to
administer the school.

11. Meanwhile, the DoE, noticing that a large number of MACP cases of
teachers were pending on account of “Good” gradings being treated as
below benchmark from 2016-2017/2017-2018 onwards, issued a circular
dated 31st August, 2020 directing all Heads of School to re-check such cases
and place them before the Reporting/Reviewing Officers, and where such
officers were no longer in office, to route them through the District Deputy
Directors for consideration by the competent authority.

12. In furtherance of this policy, by order dated 31 st January, 2023, the
Deputy Director of Education, District South East, constituted a zonal
reviewing committee and, acting on its recommendations, upgraded the
APAR for 2017-2018 of three employees, one of whom is the Petitioner,
from “Good” to “Very Good”, expressly noting that the
Reporting/Reviewing Officers had not been aware that “Good” would be
treated as below benchmark for MACP; and directing that “the adverse
effect from the ACR for the year 2017-18” be expunged and that the

W.P.(C) 13385/2024 Page 4 of 14
This is a digitally signed order.

13. On the same day, by a separate order of even date, the Deputy
Director considered the Petitioner’s APAR for 2016-2017 and, on the basis
of the zonal committee’s recommendation, upgraded his grading from
“Average” to “Good”; however, he simultaneously recorded that “Good” is
to be treated as below benchmark for MACP, and did not extend the
upgradation to “Very Good”. The reasons cited by the committee for 2016-
2017 and 2017-2018, inter alia alleged decline in Class X Science results
and the earlier warning, are substantially identical.

14. Aggrieved by denial of MACP on the basis of the said APAR for
2016-2017, the Petitioner earlier instituted W.P.(C) No.3463/2023, which
was withdrawn on 21st August, 2024 with liberty to file a fresh petition. He
has now approached this Court challenging his 2016-2017 APAR and the
order dated 31st January, 2023, and seeking direction to grant him 1st MACP
w.e.f. 06th August, 2018 with arrears.

Proceedings and stand of the parties

15. Despite opportunities, no counter-affidavit has been filed by the
Respondents. However, counsel for the DoE, Ms. Latika Chaudhary, has
been heard at length.

16. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that:

(i) The ACR for 2016-2017 is vitiated as it was never reviewed by the
Managing Committee as mandated by Rule 112(4) of the DSE Rules, a fact
admitted in letter dated 19th June, 2023;

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

W.P.(C) 13385/2024 Page 5 of 14
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);

(iii) The only discernible basis for the original “Average” grading is the
warning dated 09th November, 2017, which falls outside the relevant
assessment year and has been expressly declared “not a penalty” and
irrelevant to MACP/promotion by the Commissioner for Persons with
Disabilities; and

(iv) The order dated 31st January, 2023 is inconsistent and arbitrary in that
it upgrades the Petitioner’s APAR for 2017-2018 from “Good” to “Very
Good” while stopping at “Good” for 2016-2017, despite identical reasoning
of the committee and despite recognising that “Good” itself is below
benchmark and adverse.

17. On these premises, it is urged that the APAR for 2016-2017, insofar
as it grades the Petitioner below benchmark, is liable to be quashed or
ignored for MACP purposes; and, the Petitioner having otherwise an
unblemished record and having completed ten years of service, a direction
be issued to grant him the benefit of 1st MACP w.e.f. 06th August, 2018 with
all consequential financial benefits.

18. Per contra, Ms. Latika Chaudhary contends that for grant of MACP
the prescribed benchmark is “Very Good” and even after the review exercise
carried out pursuant to the circular dated 31st August, 2020, the Petitioner’s
APAR for 2016-2017 stands upgraded only from “Average” to “Good”.
Since the Petitioner does not meet the benchmark of “Very Good” for that
year, he cannot claim MACP as a matter of right. She submits that the
Petitioner’s ACR for 2016-2017 was communicated and he was afforded an
opportunity of making a representation, which was considered by the

W.P.(C) 13385/2024 Page 6 of 14
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
reviewing authority, resulting in the partial upgradation, and that no further
interference is called for in the subjective assessment of performance.
Points of determination

19. In the light of the above, the following issues arise for determination:

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.

19.3 Whether the order dated 31st January, 2023, insofar as it upgrades the
Petitioner’s APAR for 2017-2018 from “Good” to “Very Good” while
upgrading the APAR for 2016-2017 only to “Good”, is arbitrary and
violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
19.4 If the above issues are answered in favour of the Petitioner, whether
the Petitioner is entitled to 1st MACP w.e.f. 06th August, 2018 with
consequential benefits.

Legal position

20. Rule 112 of the DSE Rules provides, inter alia, for review by the
Managing Committee of every ACR recorded by the Head of School in
respect of employees working under him, communication of any adverse
entry to the employee concerned, and a right of appeal to the Director within
thirty days of such communication.

W.P.(C) 13385/2024 Page 7 of 14

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

21. In Akhtar Ali Siddiqui & Ors. v. Delhi Administration & Ors.,6 this
Court held that the review of ACRs by the Managing Committee is
mandatory, and that non-compliance with this requirement vitiates the ACR.
The said view has been reiterated in later decisions such as Poonam Sharma
v. Director of Education & Ors.,7 wherein the Court reiterated the
mandatory role of the Managing Committee in the ACR framework and
further emphasised that ACR entries must be communicated to the employee
so as to afford an opportunity to challenge or seek upgradation of such
entries.

22. The law on communication of ACR entries is well-settled. In Dev
Dutt v. Union of India,8 the Supreme Court held that every entry in the
ACR of a public servant, whether poor, fair, average, good or very good,
must be communicated to him within a reasonable period, as non-
communication of such entry, which may affect his chances of promotion, is
arbitrary and violative of Article 14. The Court explained that any entry
which has an adverse civil consequence, such as denial of promotion, must
be treated as adverse for the purpose of communication and representation.

23. In Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar v. Union of India,9 the Supreme Court
applied Dev Dutt and held that non-communication of ACR gradings that
affect promotion prospects leads to civil consequences and cannot be used to
deny promotion or other benefits.

24. It is equally trite that if an initial act is void for non-compliance with
mandatory provisions, subsequent proceedings built on that foundation are

6
1990 SCC OnLine Del 118
7
2023 SCC OnLine Del 568
8
(2008) 8 SCC 725
9
(2009) 16 SCC 146

W.P.(C) 13385/2024 Page 8 of 14
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
also vitiated. The maxim sublato fundamento cadit opus, i.e, when the
foundation falls, the superstructure collapses, has repeatedly been applied by
the Supreme Court to hold that an illegality at the root vitiates all
consequential proceedings founded upon it.

25. Finally, the MACP Scheme, as implemented by the Central
Government and adopted by the Government of NCT of Delhi, prescribes
benchmark gradings (generally “Very Good”) for grant of financial
upgradation, but it does not dilute the obligation of the employer to adhere
to principles of natural justice, equality and statutory procedure in recording
and using ACR entries.

Analysis
Validity of APAR 2016-2017

26. In the letter dated 19th June, 2023 issued by the DoE, it is
categorically admitted that no meeting of the Managing Committee was held
to review the Petitioner’s Confidential Report for the year 2016-2017. There
is no counter-affidavit disputing this admission. In view of Rule 112(4) of
the DSE Rules and the ratio of Akhtar Ali Siddiqui and Poonam Sharma, the
absence of review by the Managing Committee renders the ACR for that
year procedurally invalid.

27. The Respondents have sought to rely on the subsequent exercise
undertaken by the zonal reviewing committee and the Deputy Director’s
order dated 31st January, 2023 upgrading the Petitioner’s APAR for 2016-
2017 from “Average” to “Good”. However, this exercise, undertaken by a
review committee constituted by an administrative circular, even if bona
fide, cannot substitute the statutory review by the Managing Committee
envisaged by Rule 112.

W.P.(C) 13385/2024 Page 9 of 14

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

28. Pertinently, as regards communication, the Petitioner’s assertion that
the adverse/below-benchmark entries for 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 were
conveyed to him for the first time only by letter dated 17 th July, 2021 stands
unrebutted. That communication came almost three years after MACP had
fallen due in August 2018, by which time the adverse entry had already been
used to deny him financial upgradation.

29. In law, applying Dev Dutt and Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar, the
“Average”/”Good” grading for 2016-2017, inasmuch as it has the effect of
denying the Petitioner MACP, is an adverse entry which ought to have been
communicated within a reasonable period, coupled with an opportunity to
make a representation and seek correction. Non-communication till July
2021, after the damage had already been done, offends Article 14 and
violates Rule 112(6) and (7) of the DSE Rules.

30. The combination of (i) absence of mandatory review by the Managing
Committee and (ii) late communication of the adverse entry leads to an
inescapable conclusion that the Petitioner’s APAR for 2016-2017 is vitiated
and cannot be pressed into service to deny him statutory or scheme-based
benefits like MACP.

Effect of Disabilities Commissioner’s order and MACP policy on “Good”

31. The order dated 18th June, 2018 passed by the Commissioner for
Persons with Disabilities, which has attained finality, records that the
warning dated 09th November, 2017 issued to the Petitioner is “not a
penalty” and “shall have no role in the grant of MACP or promotion etc.”,
and that the Petitioner is entitled to reasonable accommodation and
protection from harassment. The Respondents neither dispute the said order
nor its contents; rather, they reiterated the said position before the

W.P.(C) 13385/2024 Page 10 of 14
This is a digitally signed order.

32. Yet, the material placed on record shows that the only articulated
basis for awarding “Average” grade in 2016-2017 is the said warning and
alleged decline in students’ results. The warning itself relates to conduct in
late 2017, i.e. either outside or at the very end of the 2016-2017 assessment
period, and has been declared non-penal and irrelevant to MACP. This being
so, using that warning as the substantive ground to maintain the Petitioner’s
grading at “Good” (below benchmark) for 2016-2017 is contrary to the
Commissioner’s order and offends the principle of reasonable
accommodation for a person with disability.

33. Moreover, the Directorate’s own circular dated 31 st August, 2020
acknowledges that treating “Good” as below benchmark for MACP from
2016-2017/2017-2018 onwards has led to pendency and hardship, and
devises a remedial mechanism to re-examine such cases and upgrade
“Good” gradings to “Very Good” where warranted, while expunging the
“adverse effect”. The Deputy Director’s order dated 31st January, 2023 in
fact implements this policy for the Petitioner’s APAR for 2017-2018,
upgrading it from “Good” to “Very Good” “for all intents and purposes”.

34. Once the employer has, as a matter of policy and specific application,
accepted that “Good” gradings for the relevant period are effectively adverse
in MACP matters and must be neutralised by upgradation to “Very Good”, it
is difficult to see how the Petitioner can be left at “Good” for 2016-2017
when (a) there is an independent statutory defect in his ACR for that year,
and (b) a quasi-judicial authority has held that the very warning relied upon
cannot affect MACP.

W.P.(C) 13385/2024 Page 11 of 14

This is a digitally signed order.

35. The Deputy Director’s order dated 31st January, 2023, while
considering the Petitioner’s APAR for 2017-2018 along with those of two
other employees, records that all three had initially been graded “Good”,
which was treated as below benchmark for purposes of MACP. The zonal
reviewing committee recommended upgradation of the gradings from
“Good” to “Very Good”. The Deputy Director further observed that the
Reporting/Reviewing Officers were not aware that a grading of “Good”
would subsequently operate as a below-benchmark and, therefore,
considered it appropriate to “expunge the adverse effect” by upgrading the
gradings to “Very Good” “for all intents and purposes”.

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.

37. The result is that while the Petitioner’s APAR for the year 2017-2018,
initially graded “Good”, stands upgraded to “Very Good”, his APAR for
2016-2017, though upgraded from “Average” to “Good”, continues to
remain below benchmark for MACP purposes. This is despite the fact that
the committee’s reasoning for both years substantially rests on the same
factual considerations and notwithstanding the additional procedural
infirmity affecting the APAR for 2016-2017, namely absence of review by

W.P.(C) 13385/2024 Page 12 of 14
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 Managing Committee. Since no rational basis for such differential
treatment emerges from the impugned order, it is rendered arbitrary and
violative of Articles 14 and 16.

38. This arbitrariness is compounded by the fact that the Respondents
have not chosen to file a counter-affidavit to offer any factual justification,
notwithstanding the Petitioner’s detailed pleadings referring to specific
documents and dates. In writ proceedings, especially in service matters
where documentary material is largely in the Respondents’ possession, such
reticence invites an adverse inference.

Entitlement to MACP

39. The Petitioner has completed 10 years of regular service as PGT
(Physics) as of 04th/05th August, 2018. There is no material on record, apart
from the 2016-2017 APAR, to suggest that he otherwise failed to meet the
benchmark or was visited with any major penalty. On the contrary, his
APAR for 2017-2018 now stands upgraded to “Very Good” “for all intents
and purposes”.

40. In the circumstances, and having regard to the principle that
uncommunicated adverse entries cannot be used to deny promotion or
MACP, it is appropriate to direct grant of MACP to the Petitioner, rather
than remanding him to another round of representations and reviews which
would only prolong the injustice.

Conclusion and directions

41. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition deserves to succeed. It is
accordingly ordered as under:

42. The Petitioner’s APAR/ACR for the year 2016-2017, insofar as it
grades him below the prescribed benchmark and is relied upon to deny him

W.P.(C) 13385/2024 Page 13 of 14
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
MACP, is declared vitiated on account of non-compliance with Rule 112 of
the DSE Rules and non-communication of adverse/below-benchmark entry,
and shall not be taken into consideration for the limited purpose of assessing
his eligibility for 1st MACP.

43. The order dated 31st January, 2023 passed by the Deputy Director of
Education, District South East, is quashed to the extent it maintains the
Petitioner’s APAR for 2016-2017 at “Good” and treats the same as below
benchmark for MACP, while granting full upgradation for 2017-2018.

44. The Respondents are directed to grant the Petitioner the benefit of 1st
financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme with effect from 06th
August, 2018, with all consequential pay fixation and arrears with interest @
6% per annum. The exercise shall be completed and the arrears released
within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment.

45. Petition is allowed in the above terms. Pending applications are also
disposed of.

SANJEEV NARULA, J
MAY 20, 2026
ab

W.P.(C) 13385/2024 Page 14 of 14
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

[ad_1]

Source link

Welcome to Airr News

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Raj Kumar Singh vs Directorate Of Education Nct Of Delhi & … on 20 May, 2026

Delhi High Court – Orders