Punjab-Haryana High Court
Miss Suman Devi vs State Of Haryana & Others on 5 October, 2009
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11745 OF 2007 (O&M) :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: October 05, 2009
Miss Suman Devi
...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana & others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr.Naveen Daryal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana,
for the State.
*****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioner applied for appointment to a post of J.B.T.Teacher by way of direct recruitment. The advertisement in this regard was issued on 20.7.2006. The application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that she did not possess the requisite academic qualification on the cut off date. The copy of the order rejecting the application is at Annexure P-2. The petitioner approached the authorities with the grievance that the degree given CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11745 OF 2007 (O&M) :{ 2 }:
to her is not being recognised by the Government of Haryana. The petitioner has also made reference to some clarification issued in this regard whereby some diplomas issued in Jabalpur is held equal to D.Ed.course of Haryana. The petitioner accordingly filed this writ petition to impugn this action of considering the petitioner ineligible for consideration for appointment to the post of J.B.T.Teacher.
In the reply filed, the stand taken by the respondents is that the service condition of J.B.T.Teacher is governed by the service rules, namely, Haryana Primary Education (Group-C) District Cadre Rules, 1994. As per the provisions contained in the Rules, the essential qualifications prescribed are as under:-
" i) Graduate with English as one of the optional/ elective subjects.
Provided that individuals who have already done JBT after 10+2 will be eligible for a period of 2 years. Such 10+2 individuals, if recruited, shall be required to comply with the condition of passing graduation within a period of 5 years.
ii) Passed two years Junior Basic Training Course of diploma-in-Education Training course from Haryana Education Department or its equivalent as recognised by the Haryana Government with special training in child psychology and behaviour of child upto the age of 12 years.
iii) Knowledge of Hindi upto Matric standard." Reference is then made to the diploma obtained by the petitioner in Special Education (visual impairment), which is CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11745 OF 2007 (O&M) :{ 3 }:
specialised course to teach the blind (visual impairment) students. It is also stated that as per the syllabus prescribed by the NCTE in D.Ed. class is different than that of the diploma taken by the petitioner. In this regard, reference is also made to Annexure P-III. The diploma in Education is taken to be a specialised course to teach the normal students upto age of 12 years, whereas the diploma held by the petitioner is for a specialised course to teach blind (visual impairment) students either oral or in Baraille. This accordingly is not considered as equivalent to D.Ed., which is required as per the rule.
Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any infirmity in the view taken whereby the diploma held by the petitioner has not been held to be equivalent to the diploma referred to in the advertisement. The stand taken by the respondents appears to be fair and reasonable. The petitioner has to her credit a specialised diploma for teaching the visual impairment students. Basis for which diploma has not been held equivalent or relevant for the appointment as a J.B.T.Teacher to teach the normal students does not suffer from any infirmity which would call for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. To be fair to the counsel for the petitioner, he wanted to place on record some documents which he could obtain from the internet and are of year 2008. This request of the counsel was not accepted having been made at the time of arguments.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
October 05, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE