Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajit Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Another on 24 January, 2013
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: A.K.Sikri, Rakesh Kumar Jain
L.P.A. No.131 of 2013 (O&M) [1]
*****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
L.P.A. No.131 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of Decision:24.01.2013
Ajit Kumar ...Appellant
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: Mrs. Anu Chatrath Kapur, Advocate,
for the appellant.
*****
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.
C.M.No.339-LPA-2013 For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, delay of 46 days in filing of the appeal is hereby condoned.
C.M. stands disposed of.
LPA No.131 of 2013 The Haryana School Teacher Selection Board issued an advertisement No.1/2012, published on 07.06.2012, inviting applications for various posts of Post Graduate Teachers (PGT) including 1083 posts of PGT Mathematics. Note 2 of the advertisement, which has been relied upon by the appellant, reads as under:-
"Note 2. A one time exemption of HTET/STET has L.P.A. No.131 of 2013 (O&M) [2] ***** been granted to the candidates who have worked for minimum 4 years till 11.04.2012 in privately managed Govt. Aided Schools, Recognized Schools and Govt. Schools.
Candidate must be in service on 11.04.2012 in addition to being in position on the date of applying for the said post. They will have to qualify HTET not later than 1st April 2015 otherwise their services will be terminated automatically.
Qualification/eligibility conditions and certificates will be determined with regard to last date fixed for submission of online applications also called as closing date given in the advertisement."
The common eligibility, to all posts, as per the advertisement was as under:-
"(a) Matric with Hindi/Sanskrit or 10+2/B.A./M.A. with Hindi as one of the subject.
(b) Certificate of having qualified Haryana Teacher Eligibility Test (HTET)/School Teachers Eligibility Test (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."
The case of the appellant is that he was working as Maths Master in Vivekanand Sr. Secondary School, Dahina, District Rewari from 17.01.1998 to 22.08.2000 and has been teaching Maths to 9th and 10th classes and has an experience of 4 years, 4 months and 25 days as Maths L.P.A. No.131 of 2013 (O&M) [3] ***** Master as on 26.07.2012 from Government Girls Middle School, Salamba, District Mewat, but his candidature was rejected by the committee at the time of interview on the ground that he does not possess the experience of teaching PGT Classes.
The grievance of the appellant is that though he was capable of teaching 9th and 10th classes but because the school being a middle school, he has not been given opportunity to teach 9th and 10th classes, rather reference has been made to the experience certificate dated 28.08.2009 as per which the appellant had worked as a Maths Master for eight weeks in the Government High School, Khera Khalilpur, Block Nuh, District Mewat where he had taught 9th and 10th classes. The contention was that if he had been posted in a particular place where there was no opportunity to teach 9th and 10th classes to gain the experience of PGT, then it is not his fault and his candidatures should not be rejected.
Similar argument was raised by the appellant before the learned Single Judge who has made the following observations while dismissing the writ petition:-
"A perusal of the eligibility conditions, clause (b) thereof would show that for the certificate of having qualified HTET/STET was to be of the respective subject for the post applied. Exemption as per Note 2 for possessing the certificate of having qualified HTET/STET was also to be granted to the candidates who had worked for a minimum of four years till 11.4.2012, which obviously means on the post for which they had applied for. Experience on a post on the basis of which exemption is being sought in the basic eligibility condition cannot be of some other post although may be L.P.A. No.131 of 2013 (O&M) [4] ***** as a teacher. The experience, thus, has got to be on the post of a Post Graduate Teacher and that too in the respective subject for the post applied for.
Note 2 cannot be read in isolation and has to be read in conjunction with clause (b) of the eligibility condition common to all posts. The contention, thus, raised by the counsel for the petitioner that mere teaching experience for minimum four years till 11.4.2012 irrespective of the post and the subject for which application has been submitted for appointment cannot be accepted.
As regards the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that due to exigencies of service, petitioner was posted in Government Girls Middle School, Salamba, in which he attained four years, four months and twenty five days' experience as a Maths Master but was unable to teach 9th and 10th classes because there being none, cannot be accepted as a ground for counting this experience towards exemption in the light of the observations made above wherein it has been held that the experience only of the same post and for the classes which a Post Graduate Teacher would be teaching after his appointment or is required to teach as per the statutory Rules. Since the petitioner has not taught classes 9th and 10th during this period, this experience cannot be taken into consideration. The Full Bench judgment of this Court passed in Jagdish Lal's case (supra), will not be applicable to the case of the petitioner.
Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed."
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and on a careful consideration of the reasoning recorded in the impugned order, we L.P.A. No.131 of 2013 (O&M) [5] ***** are satisfied that there is no error in the impugned order which could be corrected in the present appeal. In this regard, we also rely upon a decision of this Court in the case of "Anamika Gupta v. State of Haryana and others", CWP No.18569 of 2012 decided on 11.12.2012, which applies to the facts and circumstances of this case on all fours.
In view thereof, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and hence, the same is hereby dismissed, though without any order as to costs.
(A.K.Sikri) (Rakesh Kumar Jain)
Chief Justice Judge
January 24, 2013
vinod*