Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashwani Kumar And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 31 October, 2012
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: A.K. Sikri, Rakesh Kumar Jain
LPA No.1511 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
*****
LPA No.1511 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 31.10.2012
*****
Ashwani Kumar and another
. . . .Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana and others
. . . . Respondents
*****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
*****
Present: Mr.Madan Pal, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr.B.S. Rana, Addl. A.G. Haryana.
*****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
The Haryana School Teachers Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as 'Board') invited applications for direct recruitment on the post of Post Graduate Teacher (PGT)- Haryana Education Service-II (Group-B Service) vide advertisement No.1 of 2012 dated 7.6.2012.
A large number of posts were offered in various subjects, separately with District Mewat and rest of the State of Haryana, prescribing eligibility to all posts which reads as under:-
LPA No.1511 of 2012 -2-
"(a) Matric with Hindi/Sanskrit or 10+2/B.A./M.A. with Hindi as one of the subject.
(b) Certificate of having qualified
Haryana Teacher Eligibility
Test (HTET)/School Teachers
Eligibility Test (STET) of
respective subject for the post
applied, conducted by Board of
School Education Haryana,
Bhiwani/One time exemption of
HTET (See Note-2).
(c) Consistent good academic
record (See Note-1).
(d) Essential Qualification (EQ) is
given with each post."
The Advertisement was followed by a corrigendum dated 3.7.2012 after the amendment of Haryana State Education School Cadre (Group B) Service Rules, 2012 and the Mewat District School Education (Group B) Service Rules, 2012 as per which under heading "Common to all posts eligibility"
point (c) consistent good academic record (See Note-1) and Note-1 is omitted and the eligibility common to all posts after point (b) the following point C (i) & (ii) were inserted:
"(c) (i) The candidates who have worked as teachers for a minimum four years till 11.4.2012 is privately LPA No.1511 of 2012 -3- managed Government aided Schools, Recognised Schools and Government Schools and must be in service on 11.4.2012, in addition to being in position on the date of applying for the said post, are exempted to acquire qualifications of passing HTET/STET and B.Ed as one time measure.
(c) (ii) A person who has passed
STET/HTET without the
qualification of B.Ed, before the
date i.e. 11.4.2012 of notification of Service Rules concerned, shall also be considered eligible for the post of PGT as one time measure in the first recruitment.?
Besides the above, transitional provision was provided to the following effect:
"Person fulfilling conditions of qualifications as per old Rules of Haryana State Education Lecturer School Cadre (Group C) Service Rules, 1998 shall also eligible for recruitment as a one time measure. Provided` that such LPA No.1511 of 2012 -4- person shall have to qualify the Haryana Teachers Eligibility Test (HTET) and B.Ed by Ist April 2015 and if he fails to do so, his appointment shall stand terminated automatically without giving any further notice."
It was also provided in the above corrigendum that "all other terms and conditions of the Advertisement No1/2012 dated 6.6.2012 for the post of PGT will remain same."
As per the averments made in the appeal, appellant No.1 applied for the post of Physical Education in General category wherein the prescribed qualification was M.A. in Physical Education with atleast 50% marks and B.Ed from recognized university. Similarly, appellant No.2 applied for the post of PGT English wherein the prescribed qualification was M.A. English with 50% and B.Ed. from recognized University. The appellants, alleged to have applied on 12.7.2012 but their applications were rejected on the ground that they have not passed HTET/STET.
Counsel for the appellants has submitted that though they were not initially eligible as they had not passed the HTET but in terms of corrigendum dated 3.7.2012 wherein transitional provision provides for exemption from passing HTET by the candidates fulfilling the conditions of qualifications as prescribed in the Haryana State Education Lecturer School Cadre (Group C) Service Rules, 1998 (for short '1998 Rules') LPA No.1511 of 2012 -5- shall be eligible for recruitment as one time measure but such persons shall have to qualify HTET eligibility test and B.Ed by 1.4.2015 and in case of its failure their appointments shall be terminated automatically. It is submitted by him that the appellants are entitled to be considered for appointment as they fulfill the qualification as prescribed under the 1998 Rules.
On the contrary, counsel for the respondents has submitted that transitional provisions are applicable to only four posts namely, Mathematics, Biology, Political Science and History and not to all the subjects as it is clearly mentioned in Clause 7 that all other terms and conditions of the Advertisement for the post of PGT would remain same. He has also submitted that the learned Single Judge has followed decision in the case of Rakesh Makol and others Vs. State of Haryana and another rendered in CWP No.12914 of 2012 decided on 13.7.2012 which does not warrant any interference in appeal.
We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record from which we have found that by way of corrigendum Para No.4 "transitional provision"
has been added which is limited to only four categories of PGT posts namely, Mathematics, Biology, Political Science and History as in Clause 7 of the corrigendum it is clearly mentioned that all other terms and conditions of Advertisement No.1/2012 dated 6.6.2012 shall remain same which would apply to the rest of the subjects including Physical Education and English in which both the appellants had applied. It has LPA No.1511 of 2012 -6- also been observed that the corrigendum incorporate the provisions as contained in the amended Statutory Rules and in the absence of challenge to the Statutory Rules, the claim of the appellants is not sustainable.
Thus, we do not find any error in the order of the learned Single Judge which has been challenged in the appeal. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed though without any order as to costs.
(A.K. SIKRI) (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE 31.10.2012 Vivek