Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sushil Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 12 March, 2014
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6705 of 2013 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6705 of 2013
DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 12, 2014
Sushil Kumar
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
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 his candidature dated 29.11.2012 (Annexure P-13) citing certain objections. According to the petitioner the said raised objections complied with, but now only one ground has now been pressed by the respondents that the petitioner did not pass the Haryana Teachers Eligibility Test and he did not have the requisite experience on the post of Post-Graduate Teacher i.e. four years which is required for being eligible to claim of exemption from passing the above-mentioned test, as he was working on the post of a JBT Teacher.
Harish Kumar 2014.03.19 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6705 of 2013 -2-
Counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance to the advertisement dated 07.06.2012 (Annexure P-1), petitioner applied for the post of Post-Graduate Teacher (Physics) through proper channel. In the said advertisement, as per note 2, one time exemption of Haryana Teachers Eligibility Test (hereinafter referred to as 'HTET')/School Teachers Eligibility Test (hereinafter referred to as 'STET') was granted to the candidates who have worked for minimum 4 years till 11.04.2012 in private managed Government aided schools, recognized schools and Government Schools. They were, however, on selection required to qualify the said test not later than 1st April, 2015, failing which, their services will be terminated automatically. Petitioner although appointed on the post of a JBT Teacher was called upon to teach Physics of 10+1 (Science) and 10+2 (Science) classes in Government Senior Secondary School, Kaul, District Kaithal from 19.10.2007 and had been doing so even on the date of issuance of the said certificate i.e. 07.08.2012 (Annexure P-4) by the Principal of the School, which was duly countersigned by the Block Education Officer, District Elementary Education Officer as also the Deputy Director Co- ordination for Director Secondary Education, Haryana. He contends that that as per the requirement of the advertisement, the candidates could seek benefit of exemption from passing the HTET/STET provided, he had an experience of minimum of four years of teaching those classes for which post the candidate is seeking appointment to. He contends that since the petitioner is seeking appointment to the post of PGT (Physics) and had been teaching Physics of 10+1 (Science) and 10+2 (Science) classes , the experience certificate which has been issued by the respondents dated Harish Kumar 2014.03.19 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6705 of 2013 -3- 07.08.2012 (Annexure P-4) fulfills the mandate of the requirement of the advertisement enabling him to be exempted from passing the HTET/STET. The rejection of the candidature of the petitioner, thus, on this ground is not sustainable.
On the other hand, counsel for the State has submitted that since the petitioner was working on the JBT post, he was obviously performing the duties of said post with the respondents. Merely because he had been teaching the subject of Physics to 10+1 and 10+2 classes which was internal adjustment, it cannot be treated as a valid experience for the PGT of Physics. The mandate of the advertisement is that not only the teacher should be teaching 10+1 and 10+2 classes but should be working on the post of PGT, it is then only that the experience shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of exemption from passing the HTET/STET. Counsel for the State has also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.19687 of 2012, titled as 'Ajit Kumar Vs. Haryana School Teachers Selection Board & another', decided on 01.10.2012 (Annexure R-2), where this Court had rejected such an experience which was claimed to be entitling the candidate to the benefit of exemption from passing the HTET/STET. Prayer has, thus, been made for dismissal of the writ petition.
I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case.
Note (i) of the Haryana State Education School Cadre (Group- B) Service rules, 2012 to Appendix 'B' in Rule 7 which deals with the exemption from clearing the qualification of passing HTET/STET reads as Harish Kumar 2014.03.19 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6705 of 2013 -4- follows:-
"Note (i) That in case of direct recruitment the teachers working in privately managed Government aided, recognized and Government schools, are exempted to acquire qualifications of passing HTET as described in Column 3 if they have worked as a teacher for a minimum period of four years on the date of enforcement of these rules. However, the said exemption is as a onetime measure and the said category of teachers on their appointment shall have to qualify HTET by not later than Ist April 2015, otherwise their appointment shall stand terminated automatically without giving any further notice.
This was the condition which was incorporated in the advertisement. A perusal of the same would show that for a candidate, seeking direct recruitment, can seek exemption to acquire the qualification of passing HTET/STET, provided the candidate had been working in the private managed Government aided school as teacher for a minimum period of four years on the date of enforcement of the Rules. The Rules admittedly came into force on 11.04.2012. Perusal of the above Rule would further indicate that the requirement of experience is not dependent upon the post on which the candidate was working but the experience was to be taken into consideration to the classes which were taught by the candidate as a teacher. This interpretation of the Court is supported by the observations of the Co-ordinate Bench in Jagminder Kaur Vs. State of Punjab, 1995(2) SCT 797 where the qualifications prescribed for promotion to the post of Mistress to Headmistress were teaching experience of eight years as Mistress and not teaching experience on the post of Mistress which were Harish Kumar 2014.03.19 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6705 of 2013 -5- interpreted to mean that the relevant thing is the teaching experience and not the post on which it was obtained.
In the present case, petitioner, as per the experience certificate issued to him dated 07.08.2012 (Annexure P-4), was teaching subject of Physics to 10+1 (Science) and 10+2 (Science) in Government Senior Secondary School, Kaul, District Kaithal, from 19.10.2007 till the date of issuance of the said certificate i.e. 07.08.2012. The said certificate has been issued by the Principal of the School which has been duly countersigned by the Block Education Officer, District Elementary Education Officer as also the Deputy Director Co-ordination for Director Secondary Education, Haryana. Petitioner, thus, fulfills the mandate of the statutory rules for exemption from passing the HTET/STET.
The contention of the counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has been substantively holding the post of a JBT Teacher and, therefore, the experience which is gained by the petitioner because of internal adjustment of the School cannot be counted towards the experience which is relevant for the post cannot be accepted as in the statutory rules and in the advertisement, it is not mentioned that the experience should be on the said post for which the candidate is seeking appointment rather it has to be experience for teaching students of those classes for which the teachers, who are sought to be appointed are to teach. That requirement having been fulfilled by the petitioner in the light of the experience certificate Annexure P-4 cannot be said to be not in consonance with the advertisement.
The judgment relied upon by the counsel for the respondent in Harish Kumar 2014.03.19 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6705 of 2013 -6- Ajit Kumar's case (supra) was a case where the employee although working as a Math Master in Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Salmba, Block Nuh, District Mewat but since he was teaching the students upto 8th class as it was a Middle school, the said experience could not have been counted for the purpose of seeking exemption for a PGT Teacher. Reliance upon the Kamlesh's case which was referred to in the judgment in Ajit Kumar's case (supra) also would not help the stand of the respondents as the petitioner in that case was having an experience of a Primary School which would not be, therefore, relevant for the appointment to the post of PGT Teacher.
In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed and order dated 29.11.2012 (Annexure P-13) vide which the candidature of the petitioner was rejected, is hereby set aside. Petitioner is declared eligible for consideration for appointment to the post of PGT Teacher (Physics).
Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has already been interviewed which fact is not disputed by the counsel for the State, on instructions from Mr. Rumil Lamba, ADA, who is present in Court. Direction is thus issued, keeping in view the fact that there are 211 posts lying unfulfilled because of non-availability of the candidates in the general category to the post of PGT Physics, to declare the result of the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today.
March 12, 2014 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )
Harish JUDGE
Harish Kumar
2014.03.19 10:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document