Punjab-Haryana High Court
Suman Rani Alias Suman Dixit vs State Of Haryana And Another on 11 December, 2012
Bench: A.K.Sikri, Rakesh Kumar Jain
CWP No.17881 of 2012 [1]
******
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.17881 of 2012
Date of decision:11.12.2012
Suman Rani alias Suman Dixit ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K.Sikri, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
Present: Mr. Satbir Gill, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. B.S.Rana, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
*****
A.K.Sikri, CJ. (Oral)
The petitioner has applied for the post of PGT which have been notified for selection by the respondents by issuing advertisement on 07.0.2012. Selection to these posts is governed by the Haryana State Education School Cadre (Group B) Service Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") which were notified on 11.04.2012. These Rules stipulate that the basic qualification prescribed for the post in question is Matric with Hindi/Sanskrit or 10+2/B.A./M.A. with Hindi as one of the subjects. The passing of STET is also prescribed as an essential qualification. However, the Rules, which were amended subsequently as well, give one time relaxation to those who have experience of 4 years as Guest Faculty Teacher in the State of Haryana or in Government School or CWP No.17881 of 2012 [2] ****** Schools recognized by the Government. This 4 years' experience requires as PGT.
The petitioner does not have the experience of 4 years as PGT instead she possesses the experience of 3 years and 9 months as PGT and little over 2 years 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 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
11.12.2012 (Rakesh Kumar Jain)
vinod* Judge