Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sahib Singh And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 3 May, 2016
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
C.W.P No. 8286 of 2016 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P No. 8286 of 2016.
Date of decision : 04.05.2016
Sahib Singh and others ....Petitioners
versus
State of Haryana and others ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. Gurinder Pal Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral)
The present petition is for quashing advertisement No. 4 of 2016 (P-1) issued by Haryana Staff Selection commission whereby 189 posts of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) Punjabi (Group C Service) in the Department of Elementary Education has been advertised.
The precise grievance of the petitioners before this Court that all the petitioners were eligible for appointment as Punjabi Teachers as per conditions laid in Haryana State Education School Cadre (Group C) Service Rules, 1998 (for short '1998 Rules') but in the year 2012, the Rules were amended and by way of the impugned advertisement dated 17.03.2016 (P-1), the above said posts are being 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 10-06-2016 21:11:55 ::: C.W.P No. 8286 of 2016 2 filled up by amended rules.
Petitioners are matriculate and have passed Giani and O.T in Punjabi as required under the 1998 Rules but now by way of Rules 2012 (P-6), the qualifications were also changed as now B.A with 50% marks as well as certificate of having qualified HTET/STET is required.
Niether the Petitioners have 50% marks in B.A nor they have the certificate of HTET/STET.
Even if their qualification of O.T is taken to be equivalent to B.ED, they dont have the certificate of HTET/STET.
After going through the contents of the writ petition and after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner at length, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground that the Rules were amended in the year 2012 and thereafter, Commission had advertised posts twice. Neither the petitioners have 50% marks in B.A and nor they have the certificate of HTET/STET. Further they have not challenged the Rules, 2012 and thus, the impugned advertisement cannot be quashed without challenging the Rules.
The writ petition is dismissed.
(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE 04.05.2016 G Arora 2 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 10-06-2016 21:11:56 :::