Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rekha Rani & Others vs State Of Haryana & Others on 30 January, 2014
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
Civil Writ Petition No.1696 of 2014 {1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: January 30, 2014
Rekha Rani & others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana & others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present: Mr.Jaspal Singh Maanipur, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
*****
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.(ORAL)
Petitioners have approached this Court praying for quashing of the action of the Haryana School Teachers Selection Board-respondent No.3, vide which the candidature of the petitioners has been rejected on the ground that they did not possess the requisite qualification of Diploma in Education (D.Ed.) on the cut off date, i.e., 08.12.2012 and have obtained the same in January, 2013.
It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that vide notice dated 08.03.2013 (Annexure P-4), respondent-Board has extended the time for submission of the applications. In pursuance to this, the eligibility conditions have also to be taken on the last date of receipt of the applications and since the last date for receipt of the applications has been extended, therefore, the candidates who had attained the eligibility till the last date of submission of such applications in pursuance to the notice dated 08.03.2013, would also become eligible for consideration for appointment Kumar Ramesh 2014.01.31 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No.1696 of 2014 {2} against the posts advertised vide Advertisement No.2/2012. Since the petitioners had obtained their requisite qualification of D.Ed. in January, 2013 which is prior to 23.03.2013, they should have been treated eligible by the respondents. He, on this basis, contends that the petitioners are eligible for consideration for appointment because of the extension of the last date of receipt of the applications and, therefore, the action of the respondents in rejecting the candidature of the petitioners cannot sustain. He has placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Navneet Kaur Versus State of Punjab and others, 2008(4) RSJ 671, wherein it was held that if the last date of submission of the applications is extended, the eligibility conditions would also be taken on the said date and not the prior date, which was fixed in the initial advertisement. His further submission is that since the last date for submission of the applications has been extended for candidates who had passed their HTET in 2013 as also for the candidates who had attained four years experience but were not in service on 11.04.2012, which condition has been quashed by this Court, the same benefit should be granted to the petitioners. On this basis, prayer has been made for allowing the present writ petition by setting-aside the action of respondent No.3 in rejecting the candidature of the petitioners.
I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners and with his assistance have gone through the records of the case.
A perusal of the notice dated 08.03.2013 (Annexure P-4), which primarily is the document on which petitioners rely on, itself speaks about the eligibility condition. The heading of the same reads as under:- Kumar Ramesh 2014.01.31 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
Civil Writ Petition No.1696 of 2014 {3}
" NOTICE
(Reference to Adv.2/2012 for the post of PRTs) only for candidate having four years teaching experience as on 11.4.2012 and eligible on 8.12.2012.
Pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 21.12.2012 in CWP No.15929 of 2012-Shivani Gupta and ors Vs. State of Haryana and ors and other connected LPAs/CWPs wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that the condition mentioned in note 3 of the advertisement 2/2012 is contrary to the Service Rules upto the extent that "candidate must be in service as PRT on 11.4.2012 and in position on the date of applying".
Para 2 of this very notice further reads as follows:-
"However, the other eligibility conditions regarding age, academic qualification, District cadre, choice of district from 01 to 06 ec for the post will remain unchanged and the cut off date for determining the eligibility of the candidates who will apply in response to this notice will be treated as on 8.12.2012 as prescribed in advertisement no.2/2012 dated 8.11.2012."
A perusal of the above would show that there is no extension as regards the eligibility condition for a candidate to be considered for appointment in pursuance to Advertisement No.2/2012. Limited extension has been granted to those candidates who were eligible on 08.12.2012, but could not apply for the reason that they were not in service on 11.04.2012.
Counsel for the petitioners has referred to the initial Kumar Ramesh 2014.01.31 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No.1696 of 2014 {4} advertisement dated 08.11.2012 (Annexure P-3), Note 13 thereof, wherein it is mentioned that the candidates, who apply for a post, must ensure that they fulfill all the eligibility conditions on the last date fixed for submission of online application forms, i.e., 08.12.2012 the closing date given in the advertisement. Contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that since the last date of receipt of online applications has been extended, the eligibility condition would also extend till that date. This contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted in the light of the qualifiers appended in the notice dated 08.03.2013, referred to above.
From a perusal of the judgment in Navneet Kaur's case (supra), it is apparent that in the initial advertisement, which was issued, Clause 10 of the advertisement stated that the candidate should possess prescribed educational qualification and professional qualification for the post applied for on or before the last date of receipt of application. Similarly, in the corrigendum, which was issued vide which the last date fixed for receipt of applications was extended, Clause 10 which determined the educational qualification and professional qualification remained the same and it is under these circumstances that the Court was pleased to observe that it would amount to extending the date of eligibility also, which unfortunately in the present case is not done as there is a qualifier attached, as has been reproduced above, which states that the candidate should have been eligible regarding the age, academic qualification etc. as on 08.12.2012 along with the experience. Thus, the contention of the counsel for the petitioners with regard to the extension of the last date of receipt of the applications, which would entail ipso-facto extension of the eligibility condition, also cannot be Kumar Ramesh 2014.01.31 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No.1696 of 2014 {5} accepted. As regards the contention of the counsel for the petitioners for having extended the date qua the HTET candidates, who had passed the same in 2013, this Court had an opportunity to deal with the same in Civil Writ Petition No.839 of 2014 (Ms.Monika Versus State of Haryana & others), decided on 20.01.2014, wherein it has been held as follows:-
"Petitioner has approached this Court, praying for quashing the advertisement dated 08.11.2012 (Annexure P-5), which requires qualification of Diploma in Elementary Teachers Training Course prior to the cut off date as an eligibility condition for a candidate to apply for the post of Primary Teacher. Challenge is also posed to the notice dated 15.11.2013 (Annexure P-7), whereby, according to the petitioner, relaxation has been given by the Haryana School Teachers Selection Board-respondent No.3 (for short "the Board") in the educational qualifications for the post of Primary Teacher by making eligible such candidates, who have passed the HTET/STET in the year 2013, which would amount to discrimination and deserve to be set-aside.
It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had taken admission in Elementary Teacher Training Course for the Session 2009-11 from the J&K State Board of School Education. The petitioner was declared successful by passing her course and the detail marks certificate was issued to her on 08.01.2013. Petitioner, although has passed her HTET Examination in the year 2011, Kumar Ramesh 2014.01.31 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No.1696 of 2014 {6} but has been rendered ineligible because of late declaration of the result, for which the petitioner cannot be held responsible nor can she be penalised for the same. His further contention is that the candidates, who had passed HTET/STET Test in the year 2013, have also been provisionally interviewed by the Haryana School Teachers Selection Board-respondent No.3 and, therefore, if such a relaxation has been granted to the HTET/STET candidates for participation in the selection, why should such a benefit be not granted to the petitioner, whose result has been declared in January, 2013. He, therefore, prays that the condition as imposed in the advertisement dated 08.11.2012 deserves to be quashed. He further submits that the regularization granted by the Board making the HTET/STET candidates eligible, who have passed the same in the year 2013, amounts to varying the eligibility conditions as laid down in advertisement which is impermissible in law and, therefore, deserves to be set-aside.
I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and with his assistance have gone through the records of the case.
For making appointment to any post, there has to be certain minimum required qualifications. In the present case, the qualifications have been provided under the statutory rules. The said conditions, thus, cannot be waived. As regards the cut off date for eligibility of a candidate, the same is also required Kumar Ramesh 2014.01.31 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No.1696 of 2014 {7} to be prescribed so that there is finality to a process of selection and, therefore, fixing of cut off date for receipt of the applications, i.e., 08.12.2012 by the respondents cannot be said to be arbitrary. Unfortunately for the petitioner, detail marks certificate of the qualification, i.e., Elementary Teacher Training Course was issued on 08.01.2013, which is after the last date of receipt of applications. There is no evidence/documents on record to show that the result of the petitioner was declared on or prior to 08.12.2012. The petitioner is, thus, ineligible for consideration for appointment to the post of Primary Teacher.
The next contention as has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the candidates, who have cleared their HTET test in 2013, have been allowed to participate in the selection process by the respondents, although the condition of passing the HTET test was also incorporated in the advertisement, which was 08.11.2012 and the last date being 08.12.2012, the same benefit be extended to the petitioner, this plea of the counsel for the petitioner also cannot be accepted in the light of the fact that such an action taken by the respondent-Board is in pursuance to an order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, where keeping in view the fact that HTET test in year 2012 was not held, the Division Bench, on provisional basis, permitted the candidates, who had passed the HTET test held in the year 2013 to participate in the Kumar Ramesh 2014.01.31 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No.1696 of 2014 {8} interview. This action taken by the respondents is not of their own but as per the directions issued by this Court.
It would not be out of way to mention here that the HTET test is held by only one authority in the State of Haryana and it is an admitted position that in the year 2012, HTET was not held. There being no option available to the candidates to obtain such a certificate from any other sources, the same benefit cannot be extended to the petitioner as the minimum qualification of Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known) is issued and granted by different Boards/Universities/ Institutions etc. The same principle cannot, thus, be made operative for extending the eligibility condition beyond the cut off date for receipt of applications. In any case, the notice dated 15.11.2013 (Annexure P-7) clearly reveals that the eligibility is provisional and subject to the final outcome of the writ petitions/Letters Patent Appeals pending before the Division Bench of this Court.
There being no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed."
A contention has been raised by the counsel for the petitioners that similarly placed candidates as the petitioners from the same institute had earlier approached this Court and filed Civil Writ Petition No.25656 of 2013 (Vikas Malik and others Versus State of Haryana and others) in which notice of motion has been issued by the Court and interim directions have been granted for interviewing the petitioners in the said case provisionally Kumar Ramesh 2014.01.31 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No.1696 of 2014 {9} with a bar of declaration of their result, which is now fixed for 18.03.2014. Suffice it to say, in the light of the above-mentioned reasons, merely because in a similar case, notice of motion has been issued and provisional interview has been ordered to be taken, would not be a ground for parity. If the Court is satisfied that there is no merit in the petition, it is not bound by such interim directions nor can it be treated as a binding precedent.
Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed.
January 30, 2014 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )
ramesh JUDGE
Kumar Ramesh
2014.01.31 14:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh