Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nirmala Kumari vs Haryana State Teachers Selection Board on 18 July, 2013
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
CWP No.15224 of 2013 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.15224 of 2013
DATE OF DECISION : 18.07.2013
Nirmala Kumari
..... Petitioner
Versus
Haryana State Teachers Selection Board, Panchkula and another
..... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Mr. Lokesh Kumar, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
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.
The petitioner had applied for the post of Primary Teacher in pursuance to advertisement dated 08.11.2012 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Haryana School Teachers Selection Board. It has been asserted that the petitioner possessed the essential qualifications prescribed for the post and also possessed four years teaching experience as Primary Teacher as on the cut off date i.e. 08.12.2012 fixed for receipt of applications. The present writ petition has been filed raising a grievance that even though the petitioner was fully eligible yet the respondent-Board has not accepted her candidature on the ground that she does not possess four years teaching experience as Primary Teacher on 11.04.2012 in terms of Note 3 of the advertisement.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not disputed that the essential qualifications stipulated for the post of Primary Teacher was two years diploma in elementary education and 4 years teaching Thakral Rajeev 2013.07.23 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No.15224 of 2013 -2- experience. It has further been admitted that the petitioner qualified such diploma in elementary education and also acquired 4 years teaching experience as Primary Teacher only after 11.04.2012. The relevant stipulation as regards one time exemption being granted to candidates as regards qualifying HTET/STET Examination is contained in note-3 of the advertisement which reads in the following terms :-
"A one time exemption of HTET/STET for teachers who till 11.04.2012 have worked for minimum 4 years in privately managed Govt. Aided Schools, Recognized Schools and Govt. Schools. Number of years is cumulative, candidate must be in service as PRT on 11.4.2012 and in position on the date of applying. The teaching experience must be as Primary Teacher after acquiring essential qualification and supported by salary slip. They will have to qualify HTET not later than Ist, April 2015 otherwise their services will be terminated automatically."
Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that even though there is a clear stipulation in first para of the advertisement that the qualification/eligibility conditions, age and certificates will be determined with regard to last date fixed for receipt of applications also called as closing date i.e. 8.12.2012 given in the advertisement yet the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected in terms of Note 3 on the ground that she does not possess the experience as on 11.04.2012. Learned counsel submits that Note 3 of the advertisement is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as there could not be two different cut-off dates for acquiring qualifications and experience.
Still further reliance has been placed upon a Division Bench judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.15929 of 2012- Shivani Gupta and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 21.12.2012 to contend that the condition mentioned in Note 3 of the advertisement is contrary to the service rules to the extent that the candidate must be in service as Primary Teacher as on 11.04.2012.
Thakral Rajeev2013.07.23 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No.15224 of 2013 -3-
The reliance placed upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner upon the Division Bench Judgment in Shivani Gupta (supra), is wholly mis-placed. In the aforementioned writ petition it was held that the requirement for claiming exemption of HTET/STET would be only possessing the requisite four years experience as PRT upto the relevant date i.e. 11.4.2012 and as such, the stipulation contained in Note-3 to the effect that the candidate must be in service as PRT on 11.4.2012 and in possession of four years experience on the date of applying was held to be bad in law. The decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court on 21.12.2012 while allowing Civil Writ Petition No.15929 of 2012 necessitated the issuance of a public notice dated 6.3.2013 at Annexure P-2 by the respondent-Board whereby applications were invited only from such candidates who had four years teaching experience as PRT till 11.4.2012 and were also eligible as on 8.12.2012 and the closing date for submission of application forms was stipulated as 17.3.2013. It was held by the Division Bench as under:-
"39. We, thus, hold that all those who have working experience as Teacher for a minimum period of four years on the date of enforcement of rules i.e. 11.4.2012, would be entitled to be considered for the posts in question whether they were in fact in service as on 11.4.2012 or not."
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and having perused the pleadings on record, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition merits dismissal.
The initial advertisement was issued on 8.11.2012 for recruitment to the post of PRT. The essential qualifications had been prescribed. The closing date for submission of application forms had also been stipulated i.e. 8.12.2012. The subsequent public notice dated 6.3.2013 ( P-2) had been issued only for the benefit of such candidates who were Thakral Rajeev 2013.07.23 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No.15224 of 2013 -4- claiming exemption from HTET/STET on the basis of possessing four years teaching experience as PRT but had been held ineligible in the light of the offending clause in note-3 to the extent that "candidate must be in service as PRT on 11.04.2012 and in position on the date of applying." That was subsequently quashed by this Court in Shivani Gupta (supra) and it was held that all those candidates are eligible who possess the minimum four year experience till 11.04.2012. The eligibility of the petitioner, as such, for the post of PRT would have to be determined in the light of the notice dated 6.3.2013 making eligible all candidates who possess four years experience till 11.04.2012 and also eligible on 8.12.2012, the closing date stipulated in the original advertisement. The petitioner, admittedly, did not possess the requisite qualification of 4 years experience on 11.04.2012 as per his own case she has acquired the same after 11.04.2012. The prayer raised in the instant writ petition for consideration of the candidature of the petitioner for the post of PRT in pursuance to the advertisement dated 8.11.2012 (P-1) as such, is without any merit.
Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
( RAJIV NARAIN RAINA ) JUDGE 18.07.2013 rajeev Thakral Rajeev 2013.07.23 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh