Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Mode of Selection:-

(i) A written test (objective type) of 100 marks at State Level shall be conducted for recruitment of these posts. Those candidates who fulfill the other prescribed conditions of educational/ professional qualification for these posts, their merit shall be prepared on the basis of marks obtained in written test as well as marks awarded for higher qualification. The marks obtained in Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test-I (P.S.T.E.T. -I) shall not be added in the merit.
(ii) The marks for higher qualification shall be awarded as under:- 
                      Graduation First Division         = 5 Marks
                                     Second Division = 3 Marks
                                     Third Division     = 2 Marks?"
(If more than one candidates secure equal marks in the written test, then the candidate who is older in age, will be kept higher in merit and if candidates more than one secure equal marks and are having the same age, then the candidate who is having %age of higher marks, will be kept higher in the merit).

Learned Senior counsel representing the private respondents supported the pleas raised by learned State counsel. In addition, he submitted that even if no weightage is granted for higher qualification (Graduation); or for work experience, still the private respondents being higher in merit on the basis of written test deserve to be finally selected and appointed on the posts of ETTs. He further submitted that due to interim stay obtained by the petitioners, private respondents are suffering irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in any manner, thus prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions with costs.

Although learned state counsel tried to justify the impugned selection criteria while raising the plea of past practice, but that cannot be accepted being contrary to the provision contained under rule 6 (4) which is mandatory in nature and as such there is no scope for grant of any additional marks on the basis of higher qualification; rather such a course would be subversion of the service rules and negation of the rule of law.

25. Even otherwise the past practice cannot override or amend the service rules which are legislative in nature; thus on that count also, the plea of learned State counsel is liable to be rejected being misplaced in law. So long as rule 6(4) is existing in the present form, the official respondents have no other choice, except to follow the same scrupulously. Needless to say, that rule making authority has the power under proviso to article 309 for making a provision regarding weightage on the basis of higher qualification, if deems appropriate; however, that would be prospective, until and unless made applicable with For Subsequent orders see LPA-1174-2021, LPA-1177-2021, -- and 1 more.