Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manju Rani vs State Of Haryana & Others on 20 May, 2014
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
Civil Writ Petition No.8892 of 2013 {1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: May 20, 2014
Manju Rani
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present: Mr.Anurag Goyal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana,
for the State.
*****
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.(ORAL)
Petitioner has approached this Court impugning the order of rejection of her candidature dated 16.11.2012 (Annexure P-7), where a ground has been taken that the experience certificate has not been countersigned by the Director, Secondary Education, Haryana.
On 25.02.2014 when the case was taken up, following order was passed:-
"Reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2 today in Court is taken on record. Copy supplied to the counsel for the petitioner.
It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the experience certificate issued to the petitioner has been duly countersigned by the Deputy Director Co-ordination for the Director Secondary Education, Haryana on 30.07.2012. He contends that even endorsement has been mentioned as 591/30.7.
Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has Kumar Ramesh 2014.05.21 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No.8892 of 2013 {2} referred to Annexure R-2 appended along with the written statement, according to which there are no countersignatures of the Deputy Director Co-ordination.
In view of the above, direction is issued to the petitioner to produce the original experience certificate issued to her duly countersigned by the Deputy Director Co-ordination (Annexure P-4) with a further direction to the respondents to produce the records of the office of the Director, Secondary Education, Haryana maintained while countersigning the experience certificates of the Guest Faculty Teachers. List for further consideration on 14.03.2014.
Copy of the order be given dasti to the counsel for the parties under the signatures of the Special Secretary of this Court."
Counsel for the petitioner has produced the original experience certificate of the petitioner as a Guest Teacher, which is duly countersigned by the Deputy Director, Co-ordination for Director, Secondary Education, Haryana on 30.07.2012. The said certificate has been handed over to the counsel for the State, who, on instructions from Mr.Har Gopal Goel, Assistant Director Co-ordination, states that the signatures of the Deputy Director, Co-ordination are that of the said official. The endorsement number as mentioned, i.e., 591/30-7 is also mentioned correctly therein. The experience certificate is, thus, not disputed.
Counsel for the State, on instructions, has further stated that no records as such have been maintained for issuance of the experience certificates to the Guest Faculty Teachers. However, he has produced the original application which was submitted by the petitioner to the Director, Secondary Education, Haryana for verification of the experience certificate, Kumar Ramesh 2014.05.21 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No.8892 of 2013 {3} on which the endorsement number is mentioned as 591/30-7. The photo copy of the experience certificate, which was submitted for countersignatures of the Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Haryana has also been appended along with the application for verification of the experience certificate. It is this certificate which, the counsel submits, was produced by the petitioner at the time of interview on 16.08.2012. Since photo copy of the experience certificate did not contain the countersignatures of the Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Haryana, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected.
On considering the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and on perusal of the original record, I am of the considered view that the petitioner had the duly countersigned experience certificate which is dated 30.07.2012 and accordingly had no reason as to why not to produce the same before the interview board at the time when the interview was held. In any case, the very purpose for getting the experience certificate duly countersigned by the competent authority was to determine the genuineness of the experience which the Guest Teacher had attained, which would entitle the said candidate to exemption from passing the HTET. Since the petitioner possessed the requisite experience certificate duly countersigned by the competent authority and that too prior to the cut off date, the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner cannot be said to be in accordance with law.
In view of the above, the impugned order dated 16.11.2012 (Annexure P-7) is hereby quashed. The writ petition stands allowed with further observation that since the petitioner already stands interviewed, her Kumar Ramesh 2014.05.21 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No.8892 of 2013 {4} result be declared.
It goes without saying that further steps in case the petitioner stands selected would follow in accordance with law.
The original Guest Teacher experience certificate has been handed over to the counsel for the petitioner and the record as produced by the Counsel for the State is also handed over to him.
May 20, 2014 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )
ramesh JUDGE
Kumar Ramesh
2014.05.21 11:29
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh