KUM POONAM SHARMA vs SHRI HIMANSHU GUPTA & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 23.04.2026 + CONT.CAS(C) 751/2023 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:- Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CONT.CAS(C) 751/2023 Page 1 of 5 By:ABHISHEK THAKUR Signing Date:28.04.2026 13:33:21 “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