Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karpal Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 18 December, 2013
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
CWP Nos.21576, 21546, 25230 and 22615 of 2012, CWP Nos.4725, 16631, 16565,
14073, 10300, 6663, 4110, 11635, 5313, 5366, 6140, 6296, 7442, 8787, 7593, 6130,
12078, 6502, 7413 & 8597 of 2013
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
1. CWP No.21576 of 2012
Karpal Singh
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
... Respondents
2. CWP No.4725 of 2013
Amar Singh and others
..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
... Respondents
3. CWP No.16631 of 2013
Sanjay
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
... Respondents
4. CWP No.16565 of 2013
Sanjay
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
... Respondents
5 CWP No.21546 of 2012
Jaswinder Kaur
..... Petitioner
Versus Mittal Manju
2013.12.19 16:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
CWP Nos.21576, 21546, 25230 and 22615 of 2012, CWP Nos.4725, 16631, 16565,
14073, 10300, 6663, 4110, 11635, 5313, 5366, 6140, 6296, 7442, 8787, 7593, 6130,
12078, 6502, 7413 & 8597 of 2013
-2-
State of Haryana and others
... Respondents
6. CWP No.25230 of 2012
Vijay Pal
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
... Respondents
7. CWP No.22615 of 2012
Jagdish Chander
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
... Respondents
8. CWP No.14073 of 2013
Roshni Devi
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
... Respondents
9. CWP No.10300 of 2013
Vimal Devi
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
... Respondents
10. CWP No.6663 of 2013
Mittal Manju
2013.12.19 16:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
CWP Nos.21576, 21546, 25230 and 22615 of 2012, CWP Nos.4725, 16631, 16565,
14073, 10300, 6663, 4110, 11635, 5313, 5366, 6140, 6296, 7442, 8787, 7593, 6130,
12078, 6502, 7413 & 8597 of 2013
-3-
Saroj Bala
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
... Respondents
11. CWP No.4110 of 2013
Chander Pal Singh and another
..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
... Respondents
12. CWP No.11635 of 2013
Pinky Jaspal
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
... Respondents
13. CWP No.5313 of 2013
Kajal Gaur
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
... Respondents
14. CWP No.5366 of 2013
Suman Sindhu
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
... Respondents
Mittal Manju
2013.12.19 16:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
CWP Nos.21576, 21546, 25230 and 22615 of 2012, CWP Nos.4725, 16631, 16565,
14073, 10300, 6663, 4110, 11635, 5313, 5366, 6140, 6296, 7442, 8787, 7593, 6130,
12078, 6502, 7413 & 8597 of 2013
-4-
15. CWP No.6140 of 2013
Jyoti
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
... Respondents
16. CWP No.6296 of 2013
Chater Singh and others
..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
... Respondents
17. CWP No.7442 of 2013
Neelam Rani
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
... Respondents
18. CWP No.8787 of 2013
Davinder Kumar and others
..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
... Respondents
19. CWP No.7593 of 2013
Sarita Devi
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others Mittal Manju
2013.12.19 16:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
CWP Nos.21576, 21546, 25230 and 22615 of 2012, CWP Nos.4725, 16631, 16565,
14073, 10300, 6663, 4110, 11635, 5313, 5366, 6140, 6296, 7442, 8787, 7593, 6130,
12078, 6502, 7413 & 8597 of 2013
-5-
... Respondents
20. CWP No.6130 of 2013
Murti Devi
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
... Respondents
21. CWP No.12078 of 2013
Devender Kumar
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
... Respondents
22. CWP No.6502 of 2013
Pyara Lal
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
... Respondents
23. CWP No.7413 of 2013
Gurjeet Kaur
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
... Respondents
24. CWP No.8597 of 2013
Simple
..... Petitioner
Versus Mittal Manju
2013.12.19 16:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
CWP Nos.21576, 21546, 25230 and 22615 of 2012, CWP Nos.4725, 16631, 16565,
14073, 10300, 6663, 4110, 11635, 5313, 5366, 6140, 6296, 7442, 8787, 7593, 6130,
12078, 6502, 7413 & 8597 of 2013
-6-
State of Haryana and another
... Respondents
Date of Decision: 18.12.2013
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Mr. Jagbir Malik, Advocate,
Mr. Ram Niwas Sharma, Advocate,
Mr. Naveen Daryal, Advocate,
Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate,
Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate,
Mr. Gurinder Pal Singh, Advocate,
Mr. V.D. Sharma, Advocate,
Mr. Manoj Kumar Sangwan, Advocate,
Mr. Manoj Chahal, Advocate,
Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate,
Ms. Anu Chatrath Kapur, Advocate,
Mr. Abhishek Yadav, Advocate,
Mr. Inder Pal Goyat, Advocate,
Mr. Ravi Verma, Advocate,
Mr. Vikas Kathulia, Advocate,
Mr. Raje Ram Kaushik, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana,
for the respondents.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes.
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
This order will dispose of CWP No.21576 of 2012 titled Karpal Singh vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No.4725 of 2013 titled Amar Singh and otheres vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No.16631 of 2013 titled Sanjay vs. State of Haryana and another, CWP No.16565 of 2013 titled Sanjay vs. State of Haryana and another, CWP No.21546 of 2012 titled Jaswinder Kaur vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No.25230 of 2012 titled Vijay Pal vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No.22615 of Mittal Manju 2013.12.19 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP Nos.21576, 21546, 25230 and 22615 of 2012, CWP Nos.4725, 16631, 16565, 14073, 10300, 6663, 4110, 11635, 5313, 5366, 6140, 6296, 7442, 8787, 7593, 6130, 12078, 6502, 7413 & 8597 of 2013 -7- 2012 titled Jagdish Chander vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No.14073 of 2013 titled Roshni Devi vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No.10300 of 2013 titled Vimal Devi vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No.6663 of 2013 titled Saroj Bala vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No.4110 of 2013 titled Chander Pal Singh and another vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No.11635 of 2013 titled Pinky Jaspal vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No.5313 of 2013 titled Kajal Gaur vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No.5366 of 2013 titled Suman Sindhu vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No.6140 of 2013 titled Jyoti vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No.6296 of 2013 titled Chater Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No.7442 of 2013 titled Neelam Rani vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No.8787 of 2013 titled Davinder Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No.7593 of 2013 titled Sarita Devi vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No.6130 of 2013 titled Murti Devi vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No.12078 of 2013 titled Devender Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No.6502 of 2013 titled Pyara Lal vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No.7413 of 2013 titled Gurjeet Kaur vs. State of Haryana and another & CWP No.8597 of 2013 titled Simple vs. State of Haryana and another. The facts are taken from CWP No.21576 of 2012.
The Haryana School Teachers Selection Board, Panchkula issued advertisement No.1/2012 inviting applications online for direct recruitment to fill vacancies of Post Graduate Teachers (PGT) in Haryana Education Service-II (Group-B Services) in the Department of Secondary Education, Mittal Manju 2013.12.19 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP Nos.21576, 21546, 25230 and 22615 of 2012, CWP Nos.4725, 16631, 16565, 14073, 10300, 6663, 4110, 11635, 5313, 5366, 6140, 6296, 7442, 8787, 7593, 6130, 12078, 6502, 7413 & 8597 of 2013 -8- Haryana in different teaching subjects. Meanwhile, the State Government amended the old service rules by the Haryana State Education School Cadre (Group-B) Service Rules, 2012 and the Mewat District School Education (Group-B) Service Rules, 2012 and notified them on 02.07.2012 in the Haryana Govt. Gazette. This change nessecitated a corrigendum dated 03.07.2012 (P-4) to bring the advertisement in tune with the amendments since the selection process was underway. The eligibility conditions were relaxed. Persons who fulfilled the essential conditions of qualifications laid down in the old rules i.e. Haryana State Education Lecturer School Cadre (Group-C) Service Rules, 1998 were made eligible under the advertisement for recruitment as a one time measure provided that such person shall have to qualify the Haryana Teachers Eligibility Test (HTET) and B.Ed. Degree by 01.04.2015 and on failure to do so, his appointment shall stand terminated automatically without giving any further notice. By this corrigendum, the following provisions were inserted:-
"(c) (i) The candidates who have worked as teachers for a minimum four years till 11.04.2012 in privately managed Government aided Schools, Recognised Schools and Government Schools and must be in service on 11.04.2012, in addition to being in position on the date of applying for the said post, are exempted to acquire qualifications of passing HTET/STET and B.Ed. as one time measure.
(c) (ii) A person who has passed STET/HTET without the qualification of B.Ed., before the date i.e. 11.04.2012 of notification of Service Rules time measure in the first recruitment concerned, shall also be considered eligible for the post of PGT as one."
The date i.e. 11.04.2012 is the date of promulgation of the newly amended Rules. With this change brought about passing of HTET/STET a Mittal Manju 2013.12.19 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP Nos.21576, 21546, 25230 and 22615 of 2012, CWP Nos.4725, 16631, 16565, 14073, 10300, 6663, 4110, 11635, 5313, 5366, 6140, 6296, 7442, 8787, 7593, 6130, 12078, 6502, 7413 & 8597 of 2013 -9- condition precedent under the old rules was exempted from qualifying for those candidates who had worked for a minimum period of four years till 11.04.2012 in privately managed Government aided Schools, Recognized Schools and Government Schools but credit of such experience was required to be earned prior to 11.04.2012 for the exemption to operate beneficially.
The petitioner in this case and the petitioners in the connected cases have worked as Guest Faculty Teachers (GFTs) in Government schools. The petitioner has passed the Matric, 10+2, Bachelor of Arts and Master of Arts examination in Punjabi. On 29.11.2005 the Haryana Government took a policy decision to appoint teachers on Guest Faculty basis till such time regular selections are made with a view to protect the interests of a large number of students suffering from lack of teachers sufficient to impart education in different subjects. Public advertisements were accordingly issued inter alia on 17.12.2005 for selection of GFTs to be paid on period basis with a minimum of three periods daily with the scheme lasting upto 31.03.2006. The advertisement indicated that minimum 30, 36 and 39 periods are prescribed for Lecturers/Masters/C&V teachers respectively.
It is next stated that vide memo dated 27.10.2010 a decision was taken by the Government equating 220 days of teaching work by GFTs to be counted as one year of teaching experience. This memo was issued for the purpose of enhancement of remuneration and for grant of benefit of casual leave and maternity leave to teachers engaged on guest faculty basis and the Mittal Manju 2013.12.19 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP Nos.21576, 21546, 25230 and 22615 of 2012, CWP Nos.4725, 16631, 16565, 14073, 10300, 6663, 4110, 11635, 5313, 5366, 6140, 6296, 7442, 8787, 7593, 6130, 12078, 6502, 7413 & 8597 of 2013 -10- experience was meant to be counted towards teaching experience for adjustment of guest teachers and not their appointment. It was an arrangement meant only for GFTs and no more. The Government of Haryana had earlier issued letter dated 02.03.2009 converting GFTs appointment from per day/per period basis to one of contract w.e.f. 01.04.2009. The petitioner had worked as a Lecturer in Punjabi on GFT basis in Government Senior Secondary School, Bani District Sirsa from 15.11.2007 to 31.03.2009 and thereafter on contract basis till date. He claims credit of experience of more than 220 teaching days rendered on GFT basis and three years on contract basis on the date of filing of the writ petition. He claims that the period of service as GFT should be counted as a year so as to earn him four years experience required under the amended rule in lieu of qualifying the HTET or STET. The closing date under the advertisement was 28.06.2012 and for deposit of fee the next day which was later extended to 15.07.2012. The advertisement incorporated the one time exemption of HTET/STET for those who had worked for a minimum of four years till 11.04.2012. The petitioner claims that he is eligible and qualified in terms of the advertisement and corrigendum. The petitioner was called for interview on 01.10.2012. The Selection Committee did not reckon his experience as 4 years teaching experience on the ground that he had not earned experience of 4 years and therefore was not eligible for exemption. This is what brought the petitioner to file the present writ petition on 30.10.2012.
In response to the notice issued by this Court, the respondents Mittal Manju 2013.12.19 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP Nos.21576, 21546, 25230 and 22615 of 2012, CWP Nos.4725, 16631, 16565, 14073, 10300, 6663, 4110, 11635, 5313, 5366, 6140, 6296, 7442, 8787, 7593, 6130, 12078, 6502, 7413 & 8597 of 2013 -11- have entered appearance and have contested the case by filing a short reply on behalf of the Director Secondary Education, Haryana, Panchkula dated 03.04.2013. The reply filed in this case was adopted by the learned State counsel in response to CWP No.4725 of 2013 and other connected cases where replies have not been filed. It has been projected in the short reply that the minimum number of periods taught by regular teachers in Government schools is 30, 36 and 39 per week for Lecturer School Cadre/PGT, Master/TGT and Language Teachers (C&V) respectively. The State Government refers to its instructions issued vide memo dated 12.12.2008 (R-1) regarding issuance of experience certificate to Guest Teachers. As per these instructions, the experience of JBT Teachers is to be calculated/worked out by dividing the number of days taught by JBT Guest Teachers by 7 (seven). In case of Lecturers, Masters and C&V Teachers the experience in number of weeks is to be calculated by dividing the number of periods taught by the guest teacher by 30 in case of Lecturer, 36 in case of Master and 39 in case of C&V teachers respectively. However, w.e.f. 01.04.2009 the guest teachers have been engaged on yearly contract basis on a fixed remuneration, hence, the teaching experience of all the guest teachers is to be calculated/worked out on the basis of number of years w.e.f. 01.04.2009.
It is submitted that the counting of 220 days experience as a year as mentioned in Sr. No.4 in the letter dated 27.10.2010 (R-2) was meant for adjustment of displaced GFTs and not towards period countable for experience. By this method, the petitioner does not fulfill the requisite Mittal Manju 2013.12.19 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP Nos.21576, 21546, 25230 and 22615 of 2012, CWP Nos.4725, 16631, 16565, 14073, 10300, 6663, 4110, 11635, 5313, 5366, 6140, 6296, 7442, 8787, 7593, 6130, 12078, 6502, 7413 & 8597 of 2013 -12- qualification in terms of experience.
The fate of this case hinges around the construction and interpretation of the memos dated 12.12.2008 and 27.10.2010 which are noticed as below:-
"SUBJECT: ISSUANCE OF EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE TO GUEST TEACHERS ENGAGED AS PER POLICY/INSTRUCTIONS OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT.
-----------
In continuation of this office Memo No. 15/59-2005 Co (4) dated
02.12.2008 under which at Sr. No. 9 it has been mentioned that the displaced Guest Teacher who is interested for his/her adjustment will have to bring the experience certificate from the Head of Institution/BEO where he/she had served as Guest teacher. It is hereby directed that the experience certificate henceforth will be issued to the Guest Teachers on a prescribed proforma which are being got printed by this office and would be dispatched to all the DEOs/DEEOs separately.
2. The interested displaced guest teachers will submit his/her application with two photographs for experience certificate to the Head of the Institution where he/she was teaching. The Head of Institution will prepare the experience certificate, enter the particulars and paste a photograph in a separate to be maintained for this purpose and will officially forwarded the certificate to DEO concerned for his counter- signature. The DEO concerned will check and countersign the certificate and enter the particulars in a separate register to be maintained in his office and issue the certificate after inscribing his office dispatch no. & date of issue on the space provided on the right side of the certificate.
3. Further in supersession of previous letter No. 15/59-2005 Co (4) dated 06.05.2008 the experience would be calculated as under:-
(i) The JBT teachers are paid remuneration on per day basis.
Therefore, while calculating the experience of JBT Teachers in number of weeks, their experience can be worked out by dividing the number of days taught by a Guest Teacher by 7 (seven). For example if a guest teacher has been paid remuneration for 283 days, his/her experience works out to 283/7=40.4 weeks or 40 weeks.
(ii) In case of other teachers i.e. Masters, C&V Teachers and Lecturers etc, the experience in number of weeks will be calculated Mittal Manju by 2013.12.19 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP Nos.21576, 21546, 25230 and 22615 of 2012, CWP Nos.4725, 16631, 16565, 14073, 10300, 6663, 4110, 11635, 5313, 5366, 6140, 6296, 7442, 8787, 7593, 6130, 12078, 6502, 7413 & 8597 of 2013 -13- dividing the number of periods taught by that guest teacher by 30 in case of Lecturer, 36 in case of Master and 39 in case of C&V teacher. For example if a guest teacher (Master Category) has taught 1245 periods then his/her experience would come out to 1245/36=34.5 weeks or 35 weeks." The memo dated 27.10.2010 reads thus:-
"SUBJECT:-ENHANCEMENT OF REMUNERATION OF THE TEACHERS ENGAGED ON GUEST FACULTY BASIS.
-----------------
Reference on the subject cited above.
The Govt. has taken the following decisions regarding the issues relating to the teachers engaged on the guest faculty basis:-
1. Female guest teachers' would be entitled to get three months maternity leave with pay.
2. Female guest teachers would be allowed to change district in case of their marriage or for any other unavoidable circumstances.
3. 12 casual leaves would be admissible to guest teachers in the calendar year instead of one causal leave per month.
4. Instead of following a period of six months teaching experience for adjustment of guest teachers, 220 days of teaching would be considered and that period would be counted as a year
5. as regards guest teacher policy/instructions issued from time to time will be followed.
Sd/-
SUPERINTENDENT CO-ORDINATION FOR DIRECTOR SCHOOL EDUCATION HARYANA, CHANDIGARH"
Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the memo dated 06.05.2008 (P-7) where Government took a decision that service rendered by GFTs engaged in Government schools will be counted as teaching experience. The duration of experience should be calculated by dividing the number of periods by GFTs by 36 which would give the experience of GFTs in weeks.Mittal Manju
2013.12.19 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP Nos.21576, 21546, 25230 and 22615 of 2012, CWP Nos.4725, 16631, 16565, 14073, 10300, 6663, 4110, 11635, 5313, 5366, 6140, 6296, 7442, 8787, 7593, 6130, 12078, 6502, 7413 & 8597 of 2013 -14- By the circular dated 02.03.2009 the Government made changes in the terms and conditions of engagement of GFTs. It was decided that engagement of GFTs for a period of one year on contract basis would ordinarily not be recalled or teachers removed during the period of contract. This obviously was for continuity of teaching in the interest of children. However, they can be replaced by regular recruited teachers either by way of transfer, promotion or direct recruitment. In case, such displacement takes place GFTs would be adjusted to some other place in accordance with the adjustment policy already issued. Their pay package was also improved.
The petitioners in CWP No.4725 of 2013 have tabulated a chart in para.4 of the said writ petition showing the periods of engagement rendered by each of the petitioners therein. They have shown their experience as on 11.04.2012 of each of the petitioners as 4 years to bring their cases within the one time exemption from STET/HTET which they admittedly have not passed. None of the petitioners before this Court has qualified the STET/HTET. They depend on their teaching experience prior to 11.04.2012 as GFTs to secure a berth.
It was the principal submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the formula of working out teaching experience in terms of weeks or by calculating one year as 220 days is irrational for working out the experience of GFTs. In this petition, the petitioner prays for a writ of certiorari quashing the action of the Board in not considering his claim for the post advertised and to be part of the regular recruitment process. They claim that they fulfill the eligibility conditions of experience provided in Mittal Manju 2013.12.19 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP Nos.21576, 21546, 25230 and 22615 of 2012, CWP Nos.4725, 16631, 16565, 14073, 10300, 6663, 4110, 11635, 5313, 5366, 6140, 6296, 7442, 8787, 7593, 6130, 12078, 6502, 7413 & 8597 of 2013 -15- Note 2 of the advertisement read with Clause 1 of the corrigendum dated 03.07.2012 inasmuch as the period spent teaching as GFTs from 15.11.2007 to 31.03.2009 (mutatis mutandis) and such experience deserves to be counted at the rate of 220 teaching days per year in terms of the Government instructions dated 27.10.2010. The petitioner has not challenged the policy instructions as being ultra vires or unconstitutional but have only challenged denial of consideration to compete for the posts in regular selection. He has woven his case in and around the instructions and that they should be interpreted in favour of the petitioner/s. In CWP No.4725 of 2013 the petitioners have questioned the rejection letters (P-5) and have also questioned the format of experience certificates issued by the authorities as 'wrong'. They urge that with the change in terms and conditions of engagement and enhancement of remuneration fixed per month their experience should be calculated in a manner which achieves the purpose of qualifying the requisite experience. They submit that the teaching experience should be counted as per memo dated 27.10.2010 instead of on the basis of teaching experience certificate issued to them by the competent authority in terms of years spent as GFTs. Thus they assert that they have the requisite 4 years past teaching experience to their credit as on 11.04.2012.
A closer look at the memos dated 12.12.2008 and 27.10.2010 bare out that the only purpose of the first instructions was to devise the method of calculation of experience in issuing certificates to GFTs in terms of weeks. The object of issuing experience certificates was only for the Mittal Manju 2013.12.19 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP Nos.21576, 21546, 25230 and 22615 of 2012, CWP Nos.4725, 16631, 16565, 14073, 10300, 6663, 4110, 11635, 5313, 5366, 6140, 6296, 7442, 8787, 7593, 6130, 12078, 6502, 7413 & 8597 of 2013 -16- purpose of adjustment of displaced GFTs who may be interested in continuing to serve as such. The experience certificates were to be issued in the prescribed proforma. All the experience certificates so issued in the present and connected cases fall short of 4 years experience by application of the formula adopted.
The next memo dated 27.10.2010 of which much has been made at the bar is save and limited to the issue of enhancement of remuneration of teachers engaged on guest faculty basis. It was only for purposes of giving GFTs a better deal on fixed salary payable every month that ocassioned working out and adopting the fictional method of 220 days and to link it with the requisite days in a year that all teachers normally discharge duties. At the end of the day, when Government equated 220 days to be counted and reckone as a year of service it was not meant for anything more than 'adjustment' and 'enhancement of remuneration' only to improve their lot and give a certain stability of tenure till they were replaced by regularly recruited teachers or found their way to direct recruitment on merit. The petitioners have not qualified the HTET/STET as required under the prescribed rules of service. The one time exemption granted by the State from the operation of the rules and in substitution thereof by a relaxation awarded, the experience of 4 years introduced as an equalizer only to equate experience with qualifications and the prescribed Tests which were mandatory requirements under the unamended rules. As an exemption, the provision works as a concession granted by the State. It is well settled that concessions have to be strictly construed only to further the cause or object Mittal Manju 2013.12.19 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP Nos.21576, 21546, 25230 and 22615 of 2012, CWP Nos.4725, 16631, 16565, 14073, 10300, 6663, 4110, 11635, 5313, 5366, 6140, 6296, 7442, 8787, 7593, 6130, 12078, 6502, 7413 & 8597 of 2013 -17- sought to be achieved by them. It is not enough to say that the formula adopted by the Government is irrational so long as it is not arbitrary or whimsical and operates uniformly on all the competing interests or the range of selection through reasonable classification. It cannot be said that the provision is illegal, unconstitutional or arbitrary. It is no more than a workable solution to a problem arising out of operation of the guest faculty system introduced to meet an extraordinary situation arising from failure of the State in timely filling up substantive posts of teachers through direct recruitment consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Government may have been remiss in not appointing teachers through direct recruitment on regular basis and letting a GFT system infest the educational field but that does not mean that the formula adopted is absurd as no reasonably prudent person would not adopt as an alternative measure to meet emergent situation in relaxation of rule by laying down a prescribed format for calculating experience as the rule making thought fit as substitute qualification brought about by statutory amendment to the rules. There is also no direct challenge laid or reason given as to why experience of GFTs cannot be counted in weeks and therefore the attack appears to be blunted on this score. It is not for the Court to dissect the formula of working out experience in the prescribed format as it is a matter which rests in the domain of policy making. Laying down policy is the pregorative of Government and only if such policy is perverse or irrational or discriminatory then alone judicial review can be entertained. What the policy is and what it ought to be are distant relatives and it is not for the Mittal Manju 2013.12.19 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP Nos.21576, 21546, 25230 and 22615 of 2012, CWP Nos.4725, 16631, 16565, 14073, 10300, 6663, 4110, 11635, 5313, 5366, 6140, 6296, 7442, 8787, 7593, 6130, 12078, 6502, 7413 & 8597 of 2013 -18- Court to bridge the gap, if any. It has not been argued before this Court that the experience certificates in the prescribed format are not based on the method adopted in the policy instructions.
I do not find any substance or life in this petition and in the connected cases and would dismiss them.
Dismissed accordingly.
No costs.
(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) 18.12.2013 JUDGE manju Mittal Manju 2013.12.19 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh