Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Mehar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 24 February, 2014
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 19798 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19798 OF 2012
DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 24, 2014
Ram Mehar
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. Johan Kumar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr. D.A.G., Haryana,
for the State.
*****
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)
Petitioner has approached this Court impugning the order dated 06.09.2012 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Haryana School Teachers Selection Board-respondent No.2 whereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Post-Graduate Teacher Mathematics in pursuance to advertisement No.1/2012 dated 07.06.2012 (Annexure P-1) under category 1, has been rejected on the ground that the experience certificate of the petitioner from the Cambridge Public School, Assandh, District Karnal (Anneuxe P-9) is not verified by the District Education Officer and countersigned by the Director of Secondary Education of the Harish Kumar 2014.02.25 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 19798 of 2012 -2- State of Haryana.
It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, in pursuance to the advertisement 1/2012, dated 07.06.2012, applied under category 1 for appointment to the post of PGT Mathematics. She fulfill the terms and conditions of the advertisement and since she had more than four years' experience as a PGT Teacher, she was entitled to one time exemption from passing the HTET/STET as per the terms of the advertisement. The requirement of the advertisement for submission of the experience certificate was that the same has to be duly verified by the District Education Officer and countersigned by the Director of Secondary Education of the concerned State. Since the petitioner was teaching in Cambridge Public School, situated as Assandh, District Karnal and had worked there from 01.04.2008 till date of issuance of the certificate dated 12.06.2012, she got her experience certificate duly countersigned by the Secretary, Secondary Education Officer, Central Board of School Education, Regional Office, Panchkula (Annexure P-9). He contends that the competent authority for the Central Board of School Education would be the said authority which has countersigned the certificate and, therefore, the experience certificate should have been taken into consideration by the respondents. The verification of the District Education Officer and countersignatures of the Director of Secondary Education, Haryana, respectively was not required in these circumstances. Thus, the impugned order cannot sustain.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondents, has placed reliance upon note 3 of the advertisement to contend that one time Harish Kumar 2014.02.25 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 19798 of 2012 -3- exemption certificate from HTET/STET has to be verified by the District Education Officer and countersigned by the Director of Secondary Education of the concerned State. Since the school of the petitioner is situated in the State of Haryana, the said certificate was required to be got verified by the District Education Officer, Karnal and thereafter, countersigned by the Director, Secondary Education, Haryana, to be considered for the purpose of exemption certificate for HTET/STET. He, therefore, contends that the impugned order is in accordance with the advertisement and the writ deserves to be dismissed.
I have heard the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case.
The fact that the petitioner had an experience certificate from the school which is affiliated to C.B.S.E., New Delhi, is not in dispute as also the fact that the same has been duly verified and countersigned by the Secretary, Secondary Education Officer, Central Board of School Education, Regional Officer Panchkula. It is also admitted that the said certificate dated 12.06.2012 (Anneuxre P-9) has not been got verified by the District Education Officer of District Karnal and countersigned by the Director, Secondary Education, Haryana. The mandate of the advertisement as per note 3 is as follows:-
"Note 3. One time exemption certificate for HTET/STET & one time upper age relaxation certificate from Head of the Institute is required to be verified by DEO & counter signed by Director of Secondary Education of the concerned State. One time implies that an applicant can apply only once for a particular category of post in the first Harish Kumar 2014.02.25 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 19798 of 2012 -4- advertisement. No such exemption will be granted in the subsequent advertisement."
A perusal of the above leaves no manner of doubt that a candidate is entitled to one time exemption certificate for HTET/STET if a certificate is issued by the Head of the Institute and the same is duly verified by the District Education Officer and countersigned by the Director, Secondary Education of the concerned State. Since the institution from which the petitioner is having experience certificate is situated in District Karnal and in State of Haryana, the same was required to be verified by the District Education Officer, Karnal and countersigned by the Director of Secondary Education, Haryana. Even If the certificate is duly verified and countersigned by the Secretary, Secondary Education Officer, Central Board of School Education, Regional Officer Panchkula, the same would not fulfill the requirement of the advertisement. The rejection of the candidature of the petitioner, therefore, being in accordance with the advertisement, cannot be said to be illegal which would call for interference by this Court.
In view of the above, the present writ petition stands dismissed.
February 24, 2014 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )
Harish JUDGE
Harish Kumar
2014.02.25 10:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document