Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajit Kumar vs Haryana School Teachers Selection ... on 9 October, 2012
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 19687 of 2012
Date of Decision : 9.10.2012
Ajit Kumar ...... Petitioner(s)
Versus
Haryana School Teachers Selection Board and another ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present:- Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)
Petitioner has approached this Court against the order of rejection dated 27.9.2012 (Annexure-P-3), vide which his candidature has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner does not possess the experience of teaching Classes 10+1 and 10+2.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that the requirement as per the advertisement was not that the candidate should be having experience of teaching 10+1 and 10+2 classes. The only requirement as per Note 2 of the advertisement dated 2.6.2012 (Annexure-P-1) is that a candidate should have worked for a minimum of four years till 11.4.2012, which the petitioner fulfills. In this regard, he has made reference to the experience certificates attached with the writ petition as Annexure-P-2 (Colly). He on this basis contends that the candidature of the petitioner has wrongly been rejected.
Perusal of the experience certificates attached with the writ petition as Annexure-P-2 (Colly) would show that the petitioner had worked as a Math Master in Vivekanand Senior Secondary School, Dahina (Rewari) with effect from 17.1.1998 to 22.8.2000, which makes an experience of 2 years 7 months and 6 days. Thereafter, the petitioner has been working as a CWP No. 19687 of 2012 -2- Guest Teacher from 16.5.2007 to 25.7.2012, the date when the experience certificate was issued, according to which he had completed 4 years and 5 months. This experience certificate shows that the petitioner is working as a Math Master in Government Girls Middle School, Salamba, Block Nuh, District Mewat. Petitioner obviously is teaching students upto 8th class as it is a middle school. As per the advertisement, the experience of four years is required to be on the same post for which the exemption is being sought, which the petitioner does not possess although, he possesses the educational qualification for appointment to the post of Post Graduate Teacher Mathematics, but since he has not passed the HTET/STET examination, he has to take the benefit of Note 2 which grants one time exemption to the candidates who are working and have experience of minimum four years till 11.4.2012 on the said post. This Court had earlier also in a similar case, i.e. CWP No. 14666 of 2012 titled as Kamlesh Versus State of Haryana and another, decided on 2.8.2012, considered Note 2 and has held as follows :-
" Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the requirement of the advertisement, petitioner fulfills the requirement as note 2 thereof only states that for exemption of passing HTET/STET, experience required is as a teacher in the school and it is not mentioned that it should be against Post Graduate Teacher's post. Petitioner has an experience of primary teacher from 1.9.1997 to 30.6.2011 and from 1.7.2011 till date as a Trained Graduate Teacher (Social Studies). The action of the respondents in not interviewing the petitioner and rejecting her candidature is not sustainable and therefore, press for direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner as an eligible candidate and interview her for the post of Post Graduate Teacher (Sociology).CWP No. 19687 of 2012 -3-
A perusal of the eligibility conditions Clause
(b) thereof, the certificate of having qualified HTET/STET was to be of the respective subject for the post applied. The exemption as per Note 2 for possessing the certificate of having qualified HTET/STET was also to be granted to the candidates who have worked for minimum of four years till 11.4.2012, which obviously means on the post for which they have applied for.
Experience on a post on the basis of which exemption is being sought in the basic eligibility condition cannot be of some other post although may be as a teacher. It has thus got to be on the post of a Post Graduate Teacher and that too in the respective subject for the post applied. Note 2 cannot be read in isolation and has to be read in conjunction with Clause (b) of eligibility condition common to all posts. The contention thus raised by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.
Petitioner was required to possess the experience of a Post Graduate Teacher in the subject for which the application stands submitted and should be in service and working on the post applied for not only on 11.4.2012 but also on the date when application is submitted."
In the light of the above, the claim as made by the petitioner in the present writ petition cannot be accepted. The writ, therefore, stands dismissed.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE 9.10.2012 sjks