Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Petitioners have approached this Court praying for quashing of the action of the Haryana School Teachers Selection Board-respondent No.3, vide which the candidature of the petitioners has been rejected on the ground that they did not possess the requisite qualification of Diploma in Education (D.Ed.) on the cut off date, i.e., 08.12.2012 and have obtained the same in January, 2013.

It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that vide notice dated 08.03.2013 (Annexure P-4), respondent-Board has extended the time for submission of the applications. In pursuance to this, the eligibility conditions have also to be taken on the last date of receipt of the applications and since the last date for receipt of the applications has been extended, therefore, the candidates who had attained the eligibility till the last date of submission of such applications in pursuance to the notice dated 08.03.2013, would also become eligible for consideration for appointment Civil Writ Petition No.1696 of 2014 {2} against the posts advertised vide Advertisement No.2/2012. Since the petitioners had obtained their requisite qualification of D.Ed. in January, 2013 which is prior to 23.03.2013, they should have been treated eligible by the respondents. He, on this basis, contends that the petitioners are eligible for consideration for appointment because of the extension of the last date of receipt of the applications and, therefore, the action of the respondents in rejecting the candidature of the petitioners cannot sustain. He has placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Navneet Kaur Versus State of Punjab and others, 2008(4) RSJ 671, wherein it was held that if the last date of submission of the applications is extended, the eligibility conditions would also be taken on the said date and not the prior date, which was fixed in the initial advertisement. His further submission is that since the last date for submission of the applications has been extended for candidates who had passed their HTET in 2013 as also for the candidates who had attained four years experience but were not in service on 11.04.2012, which condition has been quashed by this Court, the same benefit should be granted to the petitioners. On this basis, prayer has been made for allowing the present writ petition by setting-aside the action of respondent No.3 in rejecting the candidature of the petitioners.

It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had taken admission in Elementary Teacher Training Course for the Session 2009-11 from the J&K State Board of School Education. The petitioner was declared successful by passing her course and the detail marks certificate was issued to her on 08.01.2013. Petitioner, although has passed her HTET Examination in the year 2011, Civil Writ Petition No.1696 of 2014 {6} but has been rendered ineligible because of late declaration of the result, for which the petitioner cannot be held responsible nor can she be penalised for the same. His further contention is that the candidates, who had passed HTET/STET Test in the year 2013, have also been provisionally interviewed by the Haryana School Teachers Selection Board-respondent No.3 and, therefore, if such a relaxation has been granted to the HTET/STET candidates for participation in the selection, why should such a benefit be not granted to the petitioner, whose result has been declared in January, 2013. He, therefore, prays that the condition as imposed in the advertisement dated 08.11.2012 deserves to be quashed. He further submits that the regularization granted by the Board making the HTET/STET candidates eligible, who have passed the same in the year 2013, amounts to varying the eligibility conditions as laid down in advertisement which is impermissible in law and, therefore, deserves to be set-aside.

The next contention as has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the candidates, who have cleared their HTET test in 2013, have been allowed to participate in the selection process by the respondents, although the condition of passing the HTET test was also incorporated in the advertisement, which was 08.11.2012 and the last date being 08.12.2012, the same benefit be extended to the petitioner, this plea of the counsel for the petitioner also cannot be accepted in the light of the fact that such an action taken by the respondent-Board is in pursuance to an order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, where keeping in view the fact that HTET test in year 2012 was not held, the Division Bench, on provisional basis, permitted the candidates, who had passed the HTET test held in the year 2013 to participate in the Civil Writ Petition No.1696 of 2014 {8} interview. This action taken by the respondents is not of their own but as per the directions issued by this Court.

It would not be out of way to mention here that the HTET test is held by only one authority in the State of Haryana and it is an admitted position that in the year 2012, HTET was not held. There being no option available to the candidates to obtain such a certificate from any other sources, the same benefit cannot be extended to the petitioner as the minimum qualification of Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known) is issued and granted by different Boards/Universities/ Institutions etc. The same principle cannot, thus, be made operative for extending the eligibility condition beyond the cut off date for receipt of applications. In any case, the notice dated 15.11.2013 (Annexure P-7) clearly reveals that the eligibility is provisional and subject to the final outcome of the writ petitions/Letters Patent Appeals pending before the Division Bench of this Court.