Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sangita vs State Of Haryana And Others on 1 May, 2013
Author: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Bench: Rameshwar Singh Malik
CWP No.9179 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
CWP No.9179 of 2013
Date of Decision : 1.5.2013
Sangita .....Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
...
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK ...
Present : Mr. Atul Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.
...
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J The short but important issue that falls for consideration of this court is whether any candidate can be granted the eligibility certificate known as HTET in a particular subject, despite the fact that not even one question of that subject was attempted by the candidate.
Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 8.4.2013 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent no.2 holding that petitioner was not entitled to get certificate of HTET, with subject area as Sanskrit Language Teacher, the petitioner has approached this court by way of instant petition, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari.
The brief facts of the case are that pursuant to the prospectus having been issued by the respondent-board for conducting examination of Haryana Teachers Eligibility Test-2011 ('HTET' for short'), petitioner applied, appeared in the test held on 6.11.2011 under Roll No.2317401. Petitioner was CWP No.9179 of 2013 2 declared qualified as per Annexure P-3. However, when she was not being issued the requisite certificate, she approached the respondent-board, vide representation dated 3.12.2012. When the grievance of the petitioner was not being redressed, she approached this court by way of CWP No.1341 of 2013, which came to be decided by this court, vide order dated 23.1.2013, with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner within two months. In compliance of the order passed by this court, the respondent- board has passed the impugned order. Hence, this writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that whatever question paper was given to the petitioner, she attempted the same. The subject area of the petitioner as per her admit card (Annexure P-2) issued by the respondent- board was 'Sanskrit'. In this view of the matter, once the petitioner was allowed to take the examination, a particular question paper was given to her, which she solved, she was entitled for the 'HTET' certificate with subject area as Sanskrit Language Teacher. He concluded by submitting that the respondent-board has proceeded on erroneous approach to decline the request of the petitioner on technical ground. He finally prays for setting aside the impugned order by allowing the present writ petition.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this court is of the considered opinion that present one is not a fit case, warranting interference at the hands of this court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for the following more than one reasons.
It has come on record that in compliance of the order dated 23.1.2013 passed by this court, the respondent-board issued letter dated CWP No.9179 of 2013 3 14.3.2013 to the petitioner inviting her to avail the opportunity of personal hearing on 20.3.2013. The petitioner did not appear. Thereafter, vide communication dated 21.3.2013, another chance was given to the petitioner to appear for personal hearing on 3.4.2013, however, petitioner again did not appear. Petitioner is keeping conveniently silent, as to why she did not appear before the respondent-board on any of the two occasions, availing the opportunity of personal hearing.
The competent authority, before passing the impugned order dated 8.4.2013 (Annexure P-5) discussed each and every minute detail about the factual aspect of the matter, before arriving at a just conclusion holding that petitioner was not found entitled for the relief claimed. The relevant part of the impugned order, reads as under :-
" In order to take a decision, an opportunity of personal hearing was given to the said candidate by sending a letter under speed post vide No.488/SEC/S-3 dated 14.3.2013 to appear for hearing on 20.3.2013. However, she did not appear on the scheduled date and time for personal hearing. Thereafter, the undersigned allowed another opportunity of hearing to her by sending a letter under registered cover vide No.499/SEC/S-3 dated 21.3.2013 at her correspondence address to appear for personal hearing on 3.4.2013 but she did not appear on this date too.
The undersigned has gone through the "Scheme of Examination" approved by the Govt. of Haryana, School Education Department which reveals that in order to become eligible to get a certificate of having qualified "HTET" for CWP No.9179 of 2013 4 "Sanskrit Language Teacher" a candidate was required to attempt the under mentioned four sections of question paper :-
I) Child Development & Pedagogy - 30 Questions
II)Language -1 (Hindi or English) - 30 Questions
III)Language -2 (Sanskrit) - 30 Questions
IV)Science & Math or Social Studies - 60 Questions] On careful perusal of the OMR sheet of answer book of the aforesaid candidate bearing No.417362, it has come to the notice that the said candidate attempted 30 questions of Hindi against Section-(ii). However, she did not attempt Section (iii) of Sanskrit but she attempted 30 question of English against Section -(iii). The question paper taken and solved by her was related to the following categories of teachers :-
Social Studies/Home Science/Physical Education/Hindi Language Teacher.
Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts of the case, I have come to the conclusion that the aforesaid candidate does not become entitle to get a certificate of having qualified "HTET" with subject area as "Sanskrit Language Teacher". However, if a request for other categories is received from the candidate the same will be considered as admissible under the rules. The representation dated 3.12.2012 is disposed of accordingly." CWP No.9179 of 2013 5
A bare perusal of the above said impugned order would show that once the petitioner did not attempt Section-iii of Sanskrit, but has attempted 30 questions of English against Section-iii, pertaining to the category of teachers of Social Studies, Home Science, Physical Education and Hindi Language Teacher, she was rightly not found entitled for the eligibility certificate of Sanskrit Language Teacher. Having said that, this court feels no hesitation to conclude that the petitioner herself was at fault. The answer to the question posed at the outset, is and has to be an emphatic no and it is answered, accordingly.
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any patent illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Further, it does not appeal to reason, as to how the petitioner could have been declared eligible issuing her the eligibility certificate of HTET on the subject area as Sanskrit Language Teacher, when she did not attempt any question of Sanskrit. In this view of the matter, it is unhesitatingly held that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner.
In the impugned order, it has been rightly left open to the petitioner to apply for the eligibility certificate in any other category, the questions on whose subject area were attempted by the petitioner and her claim would be considered, in accordance with the rules. Even this has not been done by the petitioner for the reasons best known to her. Thus, no illegality can be attached with the impugned order passed by the respondent-board.
No other argument was raised.
Under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is misconceived, bereft of any merit and CWP No.9179 of 2013 6 without any substance. Thus, it must fail. No case for interference has been made out.
Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.
1.5.2013 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) GS JUDGE