Punjab-Haryana High Court
Deepender vs State Of Haryana And Others on 9 October, 2014
Author: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Bench: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
CWP No. 862 of 2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 862 of 2013.
Judgment Reserved on : 10.09.2014.
Date of Decision : October 9th , 2014.
Deepender ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
Present: Mr. Jagbir Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
***
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the action of the Haryana School Teachers Selection Board in not treating him eligible for the post of PGT (Sanskrit).
2. Brief facts that would require notice are that advertisement No. 1/2012 was issued by the Haryana School Teachers Selection Board on 07.06.2012 inviting applications for recruitment to various posts including 1465 posts of PGT (Sanskrit). The essential qualifications for the post of PGT (Sanskrit) were prescribed as "M.A. Sanskrit with at least 50% marks and B.Ed. from recognized University". That apart, certain common educational qualifications were prescribed for all the advertised posts including PGT (Sanskrit) and the same were as follows :-
"(a) Matric with Hindi/Sanskrit or 10+2/BA/MA with Hindi as one of the subject.
(b) Certificate of having qualified Haryana Teacher Eligibility Test (HTET)/School Teachers Eligibility Test KANCHAN 2014.10.13 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 862 of 2013 2 (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."
3. In the advertisement itself, a one time exemption from passing HTET/STET was provided to such candidates, who have worked and possessed teaching experience of minimum four years as on 11.04.2012 in privately managed Govt. Aided, Recognized and Govt. Schools. Such exemption was provided as per Note-2 in the advertisement.
4. It has been pleaded that the petitioner possessed the essential qualifications for the post of PGT(Sanskrit) and had submitted his application online within the stipulated timeframe.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner possesses the requisite experience to claim exemption from HTET/STET and towards such assertion would refer to the experience certificates issued from Mahavidyalya Gurukul, Jhajjar District Jhajjar as also from Rishikul Sanskrit College, Rohtak at Anexures P-13 and P-14. It has been contended that even though no formal order in writing has been conveyed to the petitioner yet his candidature for the post of PGT(Sanskrit) is not being considered by the Haryana School Teachers Selection Board on the premise that his experience is on the post of Sanskrit Lecturer of Prajana, Visharada. Learned counsel would place heavy reliance upon State Government Notification dated 28.08.2009 at Annexure P-15, in terms of which, it was notified that since Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak are awarding two kinds of certificates, namely, Poorva Madhyama/Prajana, which is being treated equivalent to Class 10th by the Universities for the purpose of higher studies in Sanskrit as KANCHAN 2014.10.13 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 862 of 2013 3 also awarding certificate of Uttar Madhyama/Visharada and which is being treated equivalent to 10+2 for the purpose of higher studies in Sanskrit, as such these two level certificates awarded by both the Universities would be treated as equivalent to Class 10th and Class 12th respectively for the purpose of employment in the State of Haryana. Accordingly, it is contended that the petitioner possesses the requisite four years' experience to claim exemption from HTET/STET and the action of the respondent Board in not considering the petitioner to be eligible for the post of PGT(Sanskrit) is without any justifiable basis.
6. Upon notice having been issued, a short reply of the Secretary, Haryana School Teachers Selection Board has been filed. Stand taken on behalf of the recruitment agency is that the Haryana State Education School Cadre (Group-B) Service Rules, 2012 have been duly notified and which govern the service conditions of the post of PGTs. Note-1 of Appendix B of the 2012 Service Rules, provides as under :-
"Note I "That in case of direct recruitment, the teachers working in privately managed Government aided, recognized and Government Schools, are exempted to acquire qualifications of HTET as described in column 3, if they worked as a teacher for a minimum period of four years on the date of enforcement of these rules. However the said exemption is as a onetime measure and the said category of teachers on their appointment shall have to qualify HTET by not later than 1st April, 2015, otherwise their appointment shall stand terminated automatically without giving any further notice."
7. Learned State counsel would submit that Note-2 in the advertisement is in terms of the relevant Note-1 of Appendix B under the Statutory Rules and it is only such candidates, who have a teaching experience for a minimum period of four years in privately managed KANCHAN Government Aided, Recognized and Government Schools are entitled to 2014.10.13 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 862 of 2013 4 be exempted from the qualifications of HTET/STET. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has placed reliance upon two experience certificates issued from Mahavidyalya Gurukul, Jhajjar District Jhajjar and Rishikul Sanskrit College, Rohtak (Annexures P-13 and P-14) respectively and such certificates reflect the teaching experience of the petitioner having served in a Mahavidyalya/College and not in a school. As such, it is contended that on the basis of such experience, the petitioner cannot enjoy exemption from HTET/STET and cannot be considered eligible for the post of PGT(Sanskrit).
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the short question that arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether the experience possessed by the petitioner in the light of experience certificates at Annexures P-13 and P-14 from Mahavidyalya Gurukul, Jhajjar District Jhajjar and Rishikul Sanskrit College, Rohtak would be valid experience so as to claim exemption from HTET/STET?
9. Identical issue came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 23099 of 2012, decided on 04.12.2012 titled as 'Manju Yadav Vs. State of Haryana and others'. The petitioner therein, namely, Manju Yadav possessed experience in excess of four years as Lecturer and set up a claim that such experience be included to fulfill the eligibility conditions of four years' experience as PGT. Such claim and contentions was negated by this Court and it was held in the following terms :-
"The petitioner does not have the experience of 4 years as PGT instead she possesses that experience as Lecturer. She, thus, submits that her experience as Lecturer be included to fulfill the aforesaid eligibility condition of 4 years as well.
We are afraid that such a contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. There is a definite purpose for prescribing 4 years' experience of teaching the students in KANCHAN 2014.10.13 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 862 of 2013 5 PGT which, for the posts now advertised, is the only material consideration. Even when the petitioner has taught as Lecturer, i.e. at a higher post and to the college going students, such experience cannot be made use of while fulfilling the requirements contained in the Rules.
We, therefore, do not find any merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed.
(A.K. Sikri) Chief Justice 04.12.2012 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) Judge"
10. At this stage, Mr. Jagbir Malik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would raise a submission that even though the experience certificates that were relied upon by the petitioner, would reflect teaching experience in a College but the petitioner was actually teaching students of Class 9th to Class 12th and in the light of Notification dated 28.08.2009 (Annexure P-15) issued by the State Government such experience would have to be treated as equivalent to the one prescribed under the Statutory Service Rules as also under the advertisement issued for the post of PGT (Sanskrit).
11. Such contention is held to be without merit.
12. It is by now well settled that it is for the employer to prescribe the essential qualifications/experience for appointment to a particular post. Whenever specific qualifications/experience are prescribed for the post, the incumbent for such a post would not be vested with an inherent right to seek the benefit of equivalent qualifications or experience as the case may be in the absence of a clear stipulation inserted in the advertisement or in the statutory rules indicating the rower with the State or the Recruitment Agency to consider and appoint the incumbents possessing such qualifications/ experience. In the facts of the present case, neither in the 2012 KANCHAN 2014.10.13 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 862 of 2013 6 Statutory Rules nor in the advertisement, there was any indication as regards considering candidates possessing equivalent qualifications/ experience. A reference may also be made to the case of Basic Education Board U.P. Vs. Upendra Rai and others, 2008(2) SCT 49, 49 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was considering the question as regards qualifications for being appointed as Assistant Master in Junior Basic Schools in U.P. and had sounded a caution to the Courts from refraining to enter into questions of equivalence of qualifications and with the discretion exercised by the experts in the field. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the following terms :-
"Grant of equivalence and/or revocation of equivalence is an administrative decision which is the sole discretion of the concerned authority and the Court has nothing to do with such matters. The matter of equivalence is decided by experts appointed by the Government and the Court does not have expertise in such matters. Hence, it should exercise judicial restraint and not interfere with it."
13. The Haryana School Teachers Selection Board has not treated the experience possessed by the petitioner as valid experience as provided under the Rules/Advertisement for claiming exemption from the HTET/STET qualifications. Such view would not be open to interference at the hands of this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
14. For the reasons afore-stated, I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.
October 9th, 2014. (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA)
kanchan JUDGE
KANCHAN
2014.10.13 16:33
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh