Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 3]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Youdhveer Singh & Another vs State Of Haryana & Others on 6 January, 2009

Author: Ajay Tewari

Bench: Ajay Tewari

           IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
                    AT CHANDIGARH

                                                 CWP No.30 of 2009
                                        Date of decision: 06.01.2009

Youdhveer Singh & another                          ...... Petitioner

                               versus

State of Haryana & others                     ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI

Present:   Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate
           for the petitioners.

           Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
                           ****

AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL)

This writ petition has been filed challenging the action of the respondents in not issuing interview letters to the petitioners for the post of Hindi Teacher.

As per the advertisement, the essential qualifications were as follows:

i) Matric from Haryana School Education Board or an equivalent qualification recognised by the Haryana School Education Board.
ii)Parbhakar/B.A. (Hons.) in Hindi from a recognized University.
iii)L.T.C./O.T. In Hindi conducted by the Haryana Education Department or an equivalent qualification recognised by the Haryana Education Department or B.A. (Hons.) in Hindi with B.T./B.Ed. With Hindi as a leading subject from a recognised University.

Admittedly, the petitioners do not fulfill these qualifications. Learned counsel for the petitioners however relies CWP No.30 of 2009 -2- upon a note given in the advertisement as per which it was mentioned that in case candidates with the above mentioned essential qualifications are not available then persons like the petitioners (who have B.A. with Hindi as an Elective subject with B.T./B.Ed. With Hindi teaching subject) could be considered. However, learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show that adequate number of candidates who have prescribed essential qualifications are not available.

In the circumstances, there can be no warrant for the proposition that the petitioners must be called for an interview. Of course, if adequate number of candidates with essential qualifications are not available, or are not found suitable, or selected, then the petitioners and other candidates like them could be called for interview by the respondent-department.

Consequently, this petition is dismissed. No costs.

January 06, 2009                              (AJAY TEWARI)
sonia                                             JUDGE