Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjeet And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 27 July, 2022
CWP No.17432 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.209 Date of Decision: 27.07.2022
1) CWP-17432-2012 (O&M)
Manjeet and others .... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ... Respondents
2) CWP-18403-2012
Jyoti Kathuria .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ... Respondents
3) CWP-17387-2012
Rekha Dahiya .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ... Respondents
4) CWP-17888-2012 (O&M)
Kaviraj and others .... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ... Respondents
5) CWP-18048-2012
Sanjay Kumar .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ... Respondents
6) CWP-18057-2012
Sanjay Kumar .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ... Respondents
1 of 12
::: Downloaded on - 03-08-2022 20:34:16 :::
CWP No.17432 of 2012 2
7) CWP-18090-2012
Parveen Kumar .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ... Respondents
8) CWP-21675-2012
Sushma .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ... Respondents
9) CWP-21988-2012
Harjinder Kaur .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ... Respondents
10) CWP-23024-2012
Seema Goyal @ Seema Bansal and another .... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ... Respondents
11) CWP-480-2013
Alka Verma .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ... Respondents
12) CWP-5304-2013
Anjana Kumari .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ... Respondents
2 of 12
::: Downloaded on - 03-08-2022 20:34:16 :::
CWP No.17432 of 2012 3
13) CWP-20343-2012 (O&M)
Surender Singh .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ... Respondents
14) CWP-21390-2012
Naresh Kumar .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ... Respondents
15) CWP-22462-2012
Manju .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ... Respondents
16) CWP-26046-2012
Neel Kamal .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ... Respondents
17) CWP-20054-2012
Pardeep Kumar and another .... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ... Respondents
18) CWP-20082-2012
Narender Singh .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ... Respondents
19) CWP-20631-2012
Rekha Rani .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ... Respondents
3 of 12
::: Downloaded on - 03-08-2022 20:34:16 :::
CWP No.17432 of 2012 4
20) CWP-20833-2012
Jagsir Singh and others .... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ... Respondents
21) CWP-20869-2012
Kuldeep Singh .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ... Respondents
22) CWP-5355-2013
Poonam .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ... Respondents
23) CWP-21389-2012
Satvir Singh .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ... Respondents
24) CWP-5673-2013
Vimal .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ... Respondents
25) CWP-8733-2013
Rohtash .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ... Respondents
26) CWP-6247-2013
Dinesh Dutt .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ... Respondents
4 of 12
::: Downloaded on - 03-08-2022 20:34:16 :::
CWP No.17432 of 2012 5
27) CWP-6249-2013
Vanita .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Ms. Anu Chatrath, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Divya Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner(s)
in CWP Nos. 17432, 17387, 18048, 18057, 18090, 21390,
20054, 20082, 20833, 20869 and 21389 of 2012 and
CWP Nos. 5304 of 2013.
Mr. V.K. Jindal, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Anna Thakur, Advocate and
Mr. K.S.Banyana, Advocate for the petitioner
in CWP no. 21988 of 2012.
Mr. R.K.Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner
in CWP No. 26046 of 2012.
Mr. C.P. Tiwana, Advocate for the petitioner
in CWP No. 22462 of 2012 and CWP No. 5355 of 2013.
Mr. Garvit Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner
in CWP No. 480 of 2013.
Mr. Harish Goyal, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP No.23024 of 2012.
Mr. R.S.Budhwar, Addl. A.G.Haryana.
***
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (ORAL)
By this common order, all the writ petitions, the details of
which have been mentioned in the heading, are being disposed of as all of
them involve similar question of law. For the facility of this order, the facts
are being taken from CWP No.17432 of 2012.
In the present petition, the petitioners applied for consideration
of their claim in pursuance of the Advertisement No.1/2012, published on
5 of 12
07.06.2012 (Annexure P-16), by which posts of PGT in various subjects
were advertised. The petitioners, who had not passed HTET/STET, claimed
exemption so as to be treated as eligible under Note-2 of the said
advertisement. According to the petitioners, they had the required experience
of working against the post of PGT for a period of four years upto
11.04.2012 and therefore, treating them ineligible by the respondents is
totally arbitrary and illegal.
The alternative argument, which has been raised by learned
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is that as per Note-2
appended with the advertisement concerned, only four years teaching
experience has been required without there being any mention that same has
to be against PGT post and hence, as the petitioners have experience as
teachers, which is more than four years as on 11.04.2012, they should be
treated eligible in all respects.
After noticing the said contention, this Court issued notice of
motion and directed the respondents to reserve the posts for the petitioners in
the respective subjects in which they were competing.
After notice of motion, the respondents have filed reply,
wherein the respondents have stated that the question of law which has been
raised in the present petition, already stands decided by the Hon'ble Division
Bench of this Court as well as the Coordinate Bench, wherein the Note-2 has
been interpreted. As per the respondents, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court while passing order in CWP No.18569 of 2012, decided on
11.12.2012 titled as Anamika Gupta versus State of Haryana and others,
interpreting the Note-2 of the advertisement have mentioned that four years
6 of 12
experience required should be as PGT only and not on any other post.
Learned State counsel submits that same is the view of the Coordinate
Bench while passing the order in CWP No.19687 of 2012, decided on
09.10.2012 titled as Ajit Kumar versus Haryana School Teachers Selection
Board and another. Hence, the claim of the petitioners that experience of
four years as a teacher is good enough to claim exemption from passing the
HTET/STET, may kindly be declined.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
Learned Senior counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners
raised an argument that the interpretation of Note-2 of the advertisement has
to mean that the teaching experience of four years is good enough to be
granted the exemption from passing the HTET/STET, which question of law
needs to be considered by this Court. The said question is no longer res
integra. Same Note-2 of the advertisement which granted exemption to
certain category of candidates from passing HTET/STET, came for
consideration before this Court on the similar ground. Hon'ble Division
Bench of this Court while passing order in Anamika Gupta's case (supra)
considered as under:-
"The petitioner does not have the experience of 4
years as PGT instead she possesses the experience as
TGT. She, thus, submits that her experience as TGT be
included to fulfill the aforesaid eligibility condition of 4
years as well.
7 of 12
We are afraid that such a contention of the
petitioner cannot be accepted. There is a definite purpose
for prescribing 4 years' experience of teaching the
students in PGT which, for the posts now advertised, is
the only material consideration.
We, therefore, do not find any merit in this writ
petition which is accordingly dismissed."
Not only this, again while interpreting Note-2 in respect of the
same advertisement, the Coordinate Bench of this Court while passing order
in Ajit Kumar's case (supra) held as under:-
"Perusal of the experience certificates attached
with the writ petition as Annexure-P-2 (Colly) would
show that the petitioner had worked as a Math Master in
Vivekanand Senior Secondary School, Dahina (Rewari)
with effect from 17.1.1998 to 22.8.2000, which makes an
experience of 2 years 7 months and 6 days. Thereafter,
the petitioner has been working as a Guest Teacher from
16.5.2007 to 25.7.2012, the date when the experience
certificate was issued, according to which he had
completed 4 years and 5 months. This experience
certificate shows that the petitioner is working as a Math
Master in Government Girls Middle School, Salamba,
Block Nuh, District Mewat. Petitioner obviously is
teaching students upto 8 th class as it is a middle school.
As per the advertisement, the experience of four years is
required to be on the same post for which the exemption
is being sought, which the petitioner does not possess
although, he possesses the educational qualification for
appointment to the post of Post Graduate Teacher
Mathematics, but since he has not passed the
HTET/STET examination, he has to take the benefit of
8 of 12
Note 2 which grants one time exemption to the
candidates who are working and have experience of
minimum four years till 11.4.2012 on the said post. This
Court had earlier also in a similar case, i.e. CWP No.
14666 of 2012 titled as Kamlesh Versus State of Haryana
and another, decided on 2.8.2012, considered Note 2 and
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
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
9 of 12
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."
In the light of the above, the claim as made by the
petitioner in the present writ petition cannot be accepted.
The writ, therefore, stands dismissed."
A bare perusal of the above would show that as per the
interpretation given to the same Note-2 by this Court, which is being relied
upon by the petitioners, only the experience of four years against the PGT
post will entitle a candidate for exemption under Note-2 of the advertisement
and not otherwise. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that mere
teaching experience for a period of four years irrespective of the post against
which the said candidate was working, can not be accepted and is
accordingly rejected.
The second argument, which has been raised by learned Senior
counsels for the petitioners is that even if the Note-2 of the advertisement is
to be interpreted that experience has to be against PGT Post, then also the
petitioners are to be treated eligible for the reason that a teacher who is
teaching Class 9th and 10th, is to be treated as a Post Graduate Teacher.
Learned counsel submits that under the RTI, the Guest Teachers who were
10 of 12
teaching 9th and 10th classes, were granted experience certificate by treating
them having PGT experience and therefore, the petitioners, who have also
taught 9th and 10th classes, are to be treated as Post Graduate Teachers for all
intents and purposes.
Learned State counsel submits that though, the said argument
has been raised before this Court orally but the said question has not been
raised in the present petition, so that reply could have been filed qua the said
argument but submits that in case, the petitioners are of the view that their
case is covered under Note-2 to the effect that they are having the experience
of working for a period of four years against a PGT post, they should file
representation attaching the proof thereof.
The representation, if any filed by the petitioners, will be
considered by the competent authority with an open mind and appropriate
order will be passed within a period of three months from the receipt of any
such representation.
Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner(s) are
satisfied with the said offer and readily accept the same and submit that the
present petitions may kindly be disposed of as having been not pressed any
further, with liberty to the petitioners to approach the respondents by way of
filing appropriate representation claiming the benefit that in fact, they have
worked against a PGT post for a period of four years and their case is
covered under Note-2.
Learned Senior Counsels submits that while issuing notice of
motion, the posts in respect of which petitioners were competing, were
reserved by this Court. As the claim of the petitioners with regard to their
11 of 12
eligibility will be decided by the respondents by passing appropriate order
on the representation to be filed by the petitioners, the interim order passed
by this Court of keeping the posts vacant, be continued till the decision of
their representation.
Learned State counsel submits that in case, the petitioners file
their representation within a period of next three weeks, the same will be
decided within a period of three months and till the decision of their
representation, no action will be taken for filling up the posts which were
kept vacant under the orders of this Court in these petitions, but after the
decision of their representation, the respondents be given the liberty to fill up
those posts in accordance with law.
Ordered accordingly.
Civil miscellaneous applications bearing No. CM-6433-CWP-
2013, CM-10712-CWP-2014, CM-13401-CWP-2019 and CM-15048-CWP-
2012 are also disposed of, in view of the aforesaid judgment.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE
27.07.2022
Maninder
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
12 of 12
