Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rakam Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 22 May, 2023
Author: Harnaresh Singh Gill
Bench: Harnaresh Singh Gill
PARVEEN KUMAR 2023.05.25 19:33 2023:PHHC:074632 -1- CWP-28771-2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-28771-2019 Date of decision: 22.05.2023 Rakam Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others beees Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. Nonish Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Sunil Kumar Vashisth, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Deepak Balyan, Advocate, for respondent No.3-Board of School Education, Haryana.
HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J. (QRAL)
1. The present petition has been filed for quashing the condition to possess the certificate of having qualified Haryana Teacher Eligibility Test (HTET) by a candidate, to apply for the post of Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) History against Advertisement No.13/2019.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no requirement of possessing the certificate of having qualified HTET for the aforesaid post and that the impugned condition is illegal or unconstitutional.
3. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that to improve the standard of education in the State of Haryana, the 'School Teachers Eligibility Test (STET) for recruitment of all categories of school | attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PARVEEN KUMAR 2023.05.25 19:33 2023:PHHC:074632 CWP-28771-2019 * teachers including JBT Teachers, C & V Teachers, Masters, Lecturers, Headmasters and Principals in govt. schools of Haryana, was introduced in 2008 i.e. prior to the introduction of Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) by the National Council for Teachers Education. Learned counsel further contends that Haryana State Education School Cadre (Group B) Service Rules, 2012, were notified on 11.04.2012, vide which the conditions of having qualified B.Ed. and the HTET were also incorporated. Learned State counsel further contends that the persons possessing the qualifications under Column-III mentioned against the respective posts under the Service Rules, 1998, were made eligible for recruitment as a one time measure, but they would have to qualify the HTET and B.Ed.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the impugned condition has been specified by the Department of Education and that the syllabus, the criteria, the pattern of examination, the schedule of examination etc., are laid down by the Department of Education, Haryana, and the role of respondent No.3 is confined only to the extent of conducting the examination as per the schedule given by the Department.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Vide advertisement No.13/2019, respondent No.2 had invited applications for the post of PGT, History. The petitioner seeks quashing the condition to possess the certificate of having qualified Haryana Teacher Eligibility Test (HTET) by a candidate, to apply for the aforesaid post.
7. From the perusal of Appendix 'B' of Service Rules, 1998, it is clear that the basic qualification required for the post of Lecturer was M.A. in the relevant subject with Matric and a certificate of having qualified the | attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PARVEEN KUMAR 2023.05.25 19:33 2023:PHHC:074632 CWP-28771-2019 ~ School Teachers Eligibility Test (STET) (which was added in 2008), but now by way of the Rules, 2012, an amendment has been made by inserting the qualification of Post Graduation in the relevant subject along with B.Ed. and having passed the HTET/STET. It is the specific case of the respondents-State that the condition of having qualified the HTET/STET was added in 2008 and the State Government had conducted three STET examinations prior to the introduction of TET by the National Council for Teacher Education and that the aforesaid condition was added to improve the standard of education in the schools.
8. Moreover, the employer may prescribe additional or desirable qualifications, including any grant of preference. It is the employer who is best suited to decide the requirements a candidate must possess according to the needs of the employer.
9. In view of the above, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition.
10. Dismissed.
22.05.2023 (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) parveen kumar JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No | attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment