Punjab-Haryana High Court
Aruna Mehta vs Haryana School Teachers Selection ... on 2 August, 2012
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 14695 of 2012
Date of Decision : 2.8.2012
Aruna Mehta
....... Petitioner
Versus
Haryana School Teachers Selection Board and another
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present:- Mr. Ashwani Kumar Bura, Advocate, for,
Mr. Jasbir Mor, Advocate, for the petitioner.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)
Petitioner has approached this Court by putting-forth her grievance that her candidature has been rejected on the ground that she does not possess the qualification of having passed Haryana Teachers Eligibility Test (in short 'HTET')/State Teachers Eligibility Test (in short 'STET') in the subject of Psychology and her experience as a College Lecturer has not been taken into consideration for granting her exemption from passing HTET/STET.
It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner possesses the educational qualifications required under the advertisement for appointment to the post of Post Graduate Teacher CWP No. 14695 of 2012 -2- (Psychology). Under the Haryana State Education Lecturers School Cadre (Group 'C') Service Rules, 1998 (in short '1998 Rules'), which were applicable earlier, there was no sanctioned post of Lecturer in Psychology in the education department. With the coming into force of the Haryana State Education School Cadre (Group 'B') Service Rules, 2012 (in short '2012 Rules') cadre of Post Graduate Teachers (in short 'PGT') in Psychology stands created. Petitioner possesses the educational qualifications for appointment to the post, but does not possess the certificate of having qualified HTET/STET. In the advertisement dated 7.6.2012 (Annexure-P-2) itself while prescribing eligibility which mandated certificate of having qualified STET/HTET of respective subject for the post applied, Note 2 was inserted which provided for one time exemption of HTET/STET. As per this note, candidates who have worked for minimum four years till 11.4.2012 and was continuing as such was exempted from qualifying the HTET/STET, but was required to qualify the same not later than 1.4.2015, failing which their services were to be terminated automatically.
Since the petitioner is working as an Assistant Professor in Psychology in Jeevan Chanan Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Assandh, she applied for the post of PGT (Psychology) claiming exemption from passing of the HTET. She was called for verification/scrutiny of documents-cum-interview to be held on 25.7.2012 at Canal Rest House, Rohtak before Committee constituted for the said purpose. An objection was raised with regard to the experience certificate of the petitioner on the ground that she has teaching experience of graduate classes and has worked in college, whereas as per the advertisement, the candidate who has worked in a Government School, Privately Managed Government Aided School and Recognized Schools was CWP No. 14695 of 2012 -3- only eligible for grant of exemption on the basis of experience of four years prior to 11.4.2012. The candidature of the petitioner was therefore rejected on this ground and an endorsement was put on the roll number (Annexure-P-13) which was issued to the petitioner for appearing before the Committee. This, the counsel for the petitioner, contends is not in accordance with the said advertisement.
Further reliance has been placed by the counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Altaf Versus U.P. Public Service Commission, 2008 (14) SCC 139 to contend that when the advertisement does not specify about the experience whether it must be on which post, the same cannot be made the basis for rejecting the candidature of a candidate by adding to the advertisement.
Another argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has qualified the National Eligibility Test (UGC-NET) examination for eligibility for appointment to the post of Lecturer in the subject of Psychology conducted by the University Grant Commission. She possesses the requisite qualifications apart from having passed the B.Ed. examination for appointment to the post she has applied for. Since the petitioner has qualified the National Eligibility Test (in short 'NET') conducted by the UGC and therefore, having passed the higher test cannot be deprived of the right to participate in the selection merely because she has not passed the HTET/STET. The petitioner is eligible for appointment to the post of Lecturer in the Colleges and since she possesses the higher qualification, non-possession of the certificate of having qualified HTET/STET cannot be an impediment in appointment of the petitioner as a PGT teacher and holding her ineligible for the said post. The qualification of NET should be taken as CWP No. 14695 of 2012 -4- equivalent to HTET/STET, thus rendering her eligible for appointment to the post applied for.
His further submission is that since the subject of Psychology has been introduced now, there can be no candidate who would have experience as PGT (Psychology) and therefore, this clause in the advertisement is redundant. Prayer has thus been made for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner eligible for appointment to the post of PGT (Psychology) and set aside the rejection of her candidature by the respondents.
I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and with his assistance have gone through the records of the case.
Petitioner has applied in pursuance to an advertisement published on 7.6.2012 according to which, possession of qualification of passing HTET/STET is essential. Petitioner admittedly does not possess the said qualification and it is contended that since she has passed the NET conducted by the UGC, which is a much tougher test than HTET held by the Board of School Education, Bhiwani and therefore, she should be treated as eligible for appointment to the said post. This contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted as the requirement for the post of PGT and that of a College Lecturer is totally different and so are the requirement of passing the NET and HTET. Since the posts are different, so eligibility conditions, nature and requirement of the posts vary. One set of qualification although may be tougher, as asserted by the counsel for the petitioner, would not entitle a candidate for being declared eligible if the requirement of the advertisement for the post is different which has been prescribed by the employer who is best suited to determine the eligibility and qualifications. CWP No. 14695 of 2012 -5-
This Court, while dealing with the claim made in a writ petition that the petitioner possesses equivalent/higher qualification to the one advertised for filling up of the posts and thus should be declared eligible for appointment, in CWP No. 6704 of 2011 titled as Narender Kumar and another Versus Haryana Public Service Commission, decided on 24.4.2011, relying upon various judgments passed by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, culled out the principles which are to be followed by the Courts while dealing with such situations. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows :-
" From the above judgments it is clear that (i) the employer has a prerogative to prescribe the qualification for a particular post or service which is either prescribed under the rules and if not, depending upon the needs and requirement of the post, the employer can accordingly prescribe the same, if such a qualification has been prescribed and has been advertised the employer can insist upon strict adherence thereto. (ii) If the employer prescribes the essential qualification for appointment to a particular post and where it is not mentioned about the eligibility of the equivalent course to the prescribed qualifications either in the statutory rules or in the advertisement, absence of such a clause clearly indicates that the employer did not desire to appoint a person possessing equivalent qualification. (iii) A Court should not generally delve into determining as to whether a particular qualification is an exact equivalent to the one prescribed in the advertisement/statutory rules and leave the same to the employer to determine. (iv) Insistence on the advertisement, qualifications is also essential for the reason that if there is any deviation from the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement it would give rise to a grievance for all those who had same or even better CWP No. 14695 of 2012 -6- qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. This would amount to a fraud on public as public posts are to be filled in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and any violation thereof cannot permitted by the Court nor can the Court be a party to such illegal process of appointment.
In the light of the above, challenge of the petitioners to the order of rejection of their candidature cannot be accepted."
In the light of the above, the contention as raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the NET passed by the petitioner from UGC should be treated as equivalent to HTET/STET cannot be accepted.
As regards the experience of the petitioner as a college Lecturer whether it has to be counted or not for the purpose of grant of exemption from qualifying HTET/STET as a one time measure has been considered by this Court in a similar circumstance wherein the teacher who had been teaching the primary classes and has sought benefit of the experience on the said post for seeking exemption under the advertisement in question and this Court in CWP No. 14666 of 2012 titled as Kamlesh Versus State of Haryana and another, decided on 2.8.2012 has held as follows :-
" Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the requirement of the advertisement, petitioner fulfills the requirement as note 2 thereof only states that for exemption of passing HTET/STET, experience required is as a teacher in the school and it is not mentioned that it should be against Post Graduate Teacher's post. Petitioner has an experience of primary teacher from 1.9.1997 to 30.6.2011 and from 1.7.2011 till date as a CWP No. 14695 of 2012 -7- Trained Graduate Teacher (Social Studies). The action of the respondents in not interviewing the petitioner and rejecting her candidature is not sustainable and therefore, press for direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner as an eligible candidate and interview her for the post of Post Graduate Teacher (Sociology).
A perusal of the eligibility conditions Clause
(b) thereof, the certificate of having qualified HTET/STET was to be of the respective subject for the post applied. The exemption as per Note 2 for possessing the certificate of having qualified HTET/STET was also to be granted to the candidates who have worked for minimum of four years till 11.4.2012, which obviously means on the post for which they have applied for.
Experience on a post on the basis of which exemption is being sought in the basic eligibility condition cannot be of some other post although may be as a teacher. It has thus got to be on the post of a Post Graduate Teacher and that too in the respective subject for the post applied. Note 2 cannot be read in isolation and has to be read in conjunction with Clause (b) of eligibility condition common to all posts. The contention thus raised by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted."
Petitioner was required to possess the experience of a Post Graduate Teacher in the subject for which the application stands submitted and should be in service and working on the post applied for not only on 11.4.2012 but also on the date when application is submitted.
The next contention which has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner fulfils the eligibility criteria as per rules and the corrigendum issued therein and in the light of the transitional provision, petitioner should be held eligible for appointment to the post of PGT CWP No. 14695 of 2012 -8- (Psychology) has been considered in a similar case by this Court in CWP No. 12914 of 2012 titled as Rakesh Makol and others Versus State of Haryana and another, decided on 13.7.2012, wherein it was held as follows :-
" Prior to notification dated 11.04.2012, vide which Government of Haryana notified the Haryana State Education School Cadre (Group B) Service Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as '2012 Rules'), the Rules governing the field were the Haryana State Education Lecturer School Cadre (Group C) Service Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as '1998 Rules'), according to which, qualifications prescribed for the post of Lecturer were as follows:-
"i) M.A./M.Sc (in relevant subject) with at least 50% marks from a recognized University.
ii) Knowledge of Hindi Up to Matric standard."
With the coming into force of the 2012 Rules, now the post of Lecturer (School Cadre) is known as Post Graduate Teacher in the respective subject. The qualification prescribed is mentioned in Column No. (3) of Appendix-B under Rule 7 of 2012 Rules, which reads as follows:-
"i) M.Sc Physics / Applied Physics / Nuclear Physics / Electronics Physics with at least 50% marks and B.Ed. from a recognized University And
ii) Matric with Hindi/Sanskrit or 10+2/BA/MA with Hindi as one of the subject And
iii) Certificate of having qualified Haryana Teacher Eligibility Test (HTET) School Teachers Eligibility Test (STET).
iv) Consistent good academic record."
While comparing the two sets of Rules i.e. 1998 Rules and 2012 Rules, it comes out that now under the applicable Rules, B.Ed., Matric with Hindi/Sanskrit or 10+2/BA/MA with Hindi as one of the subjects from a CWP No. 14695 of 2012 -9- recognized university and certificate of having qualified HTET/STET as also consistent good academic record basically stand added. Thus, there is a change in the qualifications now, although the basic qualification of Post Graduate degree in relevant subject has been retained but additions have been made thereto. Advertisement dated 07.06.2012 was issued by the Board, wherein on-line applications were invited for recruitment for the PGT in various subjects. Some conditions were kept common for all posts, which read as follows:-
"COMMON TO ALL POSTS Eligibility (a) Matric with Hindi/Sanskrit or 10+2/B.A./M.A. with Hindi as one of the subject.
(b) Certificate of having qualified Haryana Teacher Eligibility Test (HTET)/School Teachers Eligibility Test (STET) of respective subject for the post applied, conducted by Board of School Education Haryana, Bhiwani/One time exemption of HTET.
(c) Consistent good academic record.
(d) Essential qualification (EQ) is given with each post.
Age:- 18-40 years, relaxation as given in
special instructions. For Teachers upper
age relaxation.
Pay Scale:- Rs. 9300-34800 plus grade pay Rs. 4800/-
Fee:- The rate of fee is Rs. 500/- for General candidates and Rs. 125/- for SC/BC/ESM/PHC candidates of Haryana State. The fee should be deposited in any branch of State Bank of India under code/account number 32307173537 for CWP No. 14695 of 2012 -10- reserved category of Haryana State and 32306718279 for General Category."
Notes 1 and 2 at the end of the advertisement, which relate to clause (b) and (c) under the heading 'eligibility', read as follows:-
"Note 1: Consistent good academic record implying that out of the lower qualification i.e. Matric/10+2/Graduation than requisite minimum qualification, one must secure at least 50% marks in two lower exams and 45% marks in third lower exam. If there are only two lower exams, than one must secure at least 50% marks in one exam and 45% marks in another.
Note 2: A one time exemption of HTET/STET has been granted to the candidates who have worked for minimum 4 years till 11.04.2012 in privately managed Govt. Aided Schools, Recognized Schools and Govt. Schools. Candidate must be in service on 11.04.2012 in addition to being in position on the date of applying for the said post. They will have to qualify HTET not later than 1st April 2015 otherwise their services will be terminated automatically. Qualification/eligibility conditions and certificates will be determined with regard to last date fixed for submission of online applications also called as closing date given in the advertisement."
Corrigendum dated 03.07.2012 (Annexure P-5) was issued consequent upon amendment of the 2012 Rules and the Mewat District School Education (Group-B) Service Rules, 2012 vide notification dated 02.07.2012 which modified the advertisement partially, which reads as follows:-
"2. Under heading "COMMON TO ALL POSTS-
Eligibility" point (c) Consistent good academic record and Note-1 shall be omitted.CWP No. 14695 of 2012 -11-
3. Under heading "COMMON TO ALL POSTS-
Eligibility" after point (b) the following point C (i) and (ii) shall be inserted, namely:-
(c) (i) The candidates who have worked as teachers for a minimum four years till 11.04.2012 in privately managed Government aided schools, Recognized Schools and Government Schools and must be in service on 11.04.2012, in addition to being in position on the date of applying for the said post, are exempted to acquire qualifications of passing HTET/STET and B.Ed. as one time measure.
(c) (ii) A person who has passed STET/HTET without the qualification of B.Ed. before the date i.e. 11.04.2012 of notification of Service Rules concerned, shall also be considered eligible for the post of PGT as one time measure in the first recruitment.
4. Transitional provision:- Person fulfilling conditions of qualifications as per old Rules of Haryana State Education Lecturer School Cadre (Group-C) Service Rules, 1998 shall also eligible for recruitment as a one time measure. Provided that such person shall have to qualify the Haryana Teachers Eligibility Test (HTET) and B.Ed. by 1st April, 2015 and if he fails to do so, his appointment shall stand terminated automatically without giving any further notice.
The relevant subject combinations in relevant posts are as under:-
Under heading "POSTS EXCEPT DISTRICT MEWAT" and POSTS FOR DISTRICT MEWAT ONLY (MWT), Essential Qualification (E.Q.) for PGT mentioned at Category No. 1, 4, 14, 17, 19, 22, 32 and 35 of the above said Advt. may be read as under, as one time measure:-
Cat. No. 1 & 19: PGT Mathematics E.Q. M.A./M.Sc. Math/Mathematics Statistics with at least 50% marks form a recognized university.CWP No. 14695 of 2012 -12-
Cat. No. 4 & 22:PGT Biology E.Q. M.Sc. Biology or Zoology or Botany or Bio-Science or Bio-Chemistry or Genetics or Micro-Biology or Plant Psychology or Bio-Technology with at least 50% marks from a recognized University. Cat. No. 14 & 32:PGT Political Science E.Q. M.A. Political Science or Public Administration with at least 50% marks from a recognized University. Cat. No. 17 & 35: PGT History E.Q. M.A. History or Ancient Indian History and Culture or Culture and Archaeology with at least 50% marks from a recognized University.
5. xxx xxx xxx xxx
6. xxx xxx xxx xxx
7. All other terms and conditions of the Advertisement No. 1/2012 dated 6.6.2012 for the post of PGT will remain same.
8. xxx xxx xxx xxx
9. xxx xxx xxx xxx"
In the light of para-4 of the Transitional Provision, petitioners pray their eligibility for competing for the post of PGT as per the advertisement published on 07.06.2012. A perusal of the above para-4 'Transitional Provision' would show that it has to be read as a whole and this Transitional Provision is limited to only four categories of PGT posts i.e. Mathematics, Biology, Political Science and History as in Clause 7, it is clearly mentioned that all other terms and conditions of the advertisement for the PGT will remain the same. The same clarification has been issued which has been termed as 'interpretation of transitional provision' dated 05.07.2012 (Annexure P-6). Thus, for a candidate to be eligible for applying to the post of PGT in pursuance to the advertisement dated 06.06.2012 published on 07.06.2012, the conditions, as provided for under the CWP No. 14695 of 2012 -13- heading "Common to all posts", will have to be fulfilled and this Transitional provision is only applicable in the category of posts, as specified in corrigendum dated 03.07.2012. As is apparent from the corrigendum dated 03.07.2012, the same has been brought about and has been necessitated in the light of amendment in the statutory Rules governing the service, which came into force vide notification dated 02.07.2012. Since corrigendum incorporates the provisions as contained in the amended statutory Rules, in the absence of challenge to the statutory Rules, the claim of the petitioners, as made in the present writ petition, cannot sustain.
A contention has been raised by the counsel for the petitioners that relaxation has been granted by the respondents in exercise of Rule 17, which is unjust, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. This contention of the counsel for the petitioners may have some force when it is seen in the light of the initially notified 2012 Rules, on the basis of which, advertisement was published on 07.06.2012 as vide this advertisement in Notes 1 and 2, such relaxation was granted but with the amendment of the statutory Rules vide notification dated 02.07.2012 and thereafter, issuance of the corrigendum dated 03.07.2012, the sting of the argument of the counsel for the petitioners stands blunted. It appears that there has been no relaxation granted by the respondents, as the corrigendum, which has been issued on 03.07.2012, is in accordance with the amendment brought about in the statutory Rules and the exemption, so granted, being a part of the statutory Rules cannot be said to be a relaxation granted by the Government under Rule 17 of the 2012 Rules."CWP No. 14695 of 2012 -14-
In view of the above, the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner being in accordance with the terms and conditions of advertisement cannot be said to be not in accordance with law.
Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE 2.8.2012 sjks