Om Parkash And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Others

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Om Parkash And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Others on 7 May, 2024

Author: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma

Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma

                                 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063270-DB




CWP-10464-2024
          2024 (O&M)                                                                       -1-


114
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

                                                      CWP-10464-2024 (O&M)
                                                    Date of Decision: 07.05.2024
                                                                           .2024
Om Prakash and others
                                                                    . . . . Petitionerss
                                        Vs.
State of Haryana and another
                                                                  . . . . Respondentss
                       ****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
       HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
                       ****

Present     Mr. Sajjan Singh, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, DAG, Haryana.

                       ****
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners has taken this Court to the judgment passed in LPA No.592 of 2022 in Neeraj Bhardwaj alias others,, decided on 22.04.2024, Neeraj vs. State of Haryana and others wherein it has been held as under:

"11. Further we find that since the policy dated 04.03.2020 was subsequently modified and amended as noticed by the Division Benches of this Court (Supra), and by way of an interim order, the services of the appellant were protected and his case would be examined examined afresh in terms of the amended Policy as notified vide memorandum dated 14.12.2023. If the appellant falls within the said eligibility conditions and has been working, he would be allowed to continue. However, if the appellant do not possess the requisite te educational qualification and also have not worked for the period as required under the notification dated 14.12.2023, the State would be free to disengage them. While considering the said aspect, the State would also take into consideration the period of having worked 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 11-05-2024 06:36:27 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063270-DB CWP-10464-2024 2024 (O&M) -2- for more than one semester/90 days in one calendar year during the interim order passed by this Court.

12. We have given thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and find that the UGC UG guidelines provided in 2010 itself for appointing Assistant Professors and Lecturers in the Colleges who possess the minimum NET/Ph.D qualification. However, the State Government had its own issued advertisements and the appointed persons who did not po possess the minimum qualifications laid down by the UGC. The advertisements issued by the respective Colleges have resulted in such a situation and regular selections are not conducted. Even this Policy of 04.03.2020 has been in vogue since last four years, but no regular selections have been made. Thus, the posts are being filled from the unqualified persons.

13. Teaching in Colleges is a responsible job. If persons do not possess minimum qualification laid down by the UGC i.e. NET/Ph.D., one can only imagine imagine the plight of the students who are being taught by such unqualified persons. Those candidates who have been appointed under the earlier Policies by the various Colleges and have not even acquired the minimum qualifications uptill now, cannot be allowed tto be continued. This Court would not sympathize on this aspect. However, those who have acquired the qualifications, they need to be protected till regular selections are made."

made.

2. Learned counsel submits that the petitione petitioners are now eligible.

3. However, we find that a cut-off off date has been fixed which cannot be said to be whimsical, or in any manner wrongful for acquiring qualification. Since the petitioners did not acquire the qualification upto the cut-off cut off date, they cannot be said to have acquired any rig right ht to continue on the post.

4. It is not for this Court to lay down the qualification and a cut cut-off off date for acquiring of qualification, and the same is sacrosanct for all. No 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 11-05-2024 06:36:28 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063270-DB CWP-10464-2024 2024 (O&M) -3- discrimination can be said to have been made, if a particular date is fixed for all persons to acquire a qualification.

5. In view thereof, the policy dated 14.12.2023 does not warrant any interference more so, in light of what we have already observed in the interference, earlier judgment of even date passed in CWP-9518-2024.

6. Writ Petition stands dismissed accordingly.

7. All pending applications also stand disposed of.

(SANJEEV SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA SHARMA) JUDGE ((SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE May 07,, 2024 Mohit goyal

1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No

2. Whether reportable? Yes/No 3 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 11-05-2024 06:36:28 :::