Punjab-Haryana High Court
Neeraj Bhardwaj Alias Neeraj vs State Of Haryana And Others on 22 April, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053775-DB
{2024:PHHC:053775-DB }
106 (15 cases)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
1. LPA-592-2022 (O&M)
in CWP-24619-2021
Date of Decision:22.04.2024
NEERAJ BHARDWAJ ALIAS NEERAJ ...... Appellant(s)
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ......Respondents
2. LPA-814-2021 (O&M)
in CWP-18958-2020
AMRIT KAUR ... Appellant(s)
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ......Respondents
3. LPA-823-2021 (O&M)
in CWP-9500-2021
PINKI RANI ...... Appellant(s)
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ......Respondents
4. LPA-824-2021 (O&M)
in CWP-459-2021
INDERJEET KAUR ...... Appellant(s)
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ......Respondents
5. LPA-825-2021 (O&M)
in CWP-179-2021
AMBIKA SANGA AND OTHERS ...... Appellant(s)
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ......Respondents
6. LPA-845-2021 (O&M)
in CWP-22185-2020
ANJU KUMARI ...... Appellant(s)
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ......Respondents
7. LPA-910-2021 (O&M)
in CWP-22617-2020
PREETI ...... Appellant(s)
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ......Respondents
1 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 29-04-2024 20:28:14 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053775-DB
{2024:PHHC:053775-DB}
LPA-592-2022 (O&M) in CWP-24619-2021
and other connected cases
Page 2 of 9
8. LPA-935-2021 (O&M)
in CWP-1195-2021
NITTIKA ...... Appellant(s)
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ......Respondents
9. LPA-918-2021 (O&M)
in CWP-19035-2020
POOJA DEEP SEHGAL ...... Appellant(s)
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ......Respondents
10. LPA-682-2022 (O&M)
in CWP-459-2021
ANNU RANI ...... Appellant(s)
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS ......Respondents
11. LPA-664-2020 (O&M)
in CWP-14894-2020
MOHITA SHARMA AND ORS ...... Appellant(s)
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS ......Respondents
12. LPA-272-2021 (O&M)
in CWP-17152-2020
HARJIT KAUR ...... Appellant(s)
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ......Respondents
13. LPA-570-2021(O&M)
in CWP-17310-2020
SUBHASH CHANDER ...... Appellant(s)
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ......Respondents
14. LPA-650-2022 (O&M)
IN CWP-14538-2021
INDERJEET ...... Appellant(s)
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ......Respondents
2 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 29-04-2024 20:28:14 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053775-DB
{2024:PHHC:053775-DB}
LPA-592-2022 (O&M) in CWP-24619-2021
and other connected cases
Page 3 of 9
15. LPA-705-2023 (O&M)
IN CWP-24420-2021
POONAM ...... Appellant(s)
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA.
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA.
Present Mr.Suresh Kumar Kaushik, Advocate
for the appellant in LPAs 814, 823, 824, 825 and 845 of 2021,
LPA-570 of 2021, LPA-592-2022 and LPA-272-2021.
Mr. Dalbir Singh, Advocate and
Ms. Manju Sharma, Advocate
for the appellant in LPA-682-2022.
Ms. Santosh Mijlani, Advocate
for the appellant in LPA-705-2023.
Mr.Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate
for the appellant in LPA-935-2021.
Mr. Arvinder Arora, Advocate
for the appellant(s) in LPA-910-2021 and LPA-918-2021.
***
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral)
CM-1345-LPA-2022 in LPA-592-2022
CM-1586-LPA-2022 in LPA-682-2022
CM-1837-LPA-2023 in LPA-705-2022
1. In view of the reasons assigned in these applications, the same
are allowed and the delay in all the applications in filing their respective LPAs
is hereby condoned.
CM-1346-LPA-2022 in LPA-592-2022
CM-2191-LPA-2021 in LPA-918-2021
CM-2062-LPA-2021 in LPA-845-2021
CM-1809-LPA-2020 in LPA-664-2020
CM-731-LPA-2021 in LPA-272-2021
CM-1838-LPA-2023 in LPA-705-2022
3 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053775-DB
{2024:PHHC:053775-DB}
LPA-592-2022 (O&M) in CWP-24619-2021
and other connected cases
2. All the applications are allowed and the documents are taken on
record subject to all just exceptions.
3. This order shall dispose of these connected LPAs as the issue
involved in all the LPAs is common.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that even those
do not possess Ph.D./NET qualification have been working for the years
together and in terms of the Policy which has been directed to be implemented
by this Court, they would be ousted.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that more than 2300
posts are still lying vacant with the respondents and appellants, who are
experienced Lecturers but do not have qualification of NET/Ph.D, ought to be
allowed to continue till the regular selections are made.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants also submit that the Policy
dated 04.03.2020 also lays down that the Assistant Professors/Extension
Lecturers, who are still working, should be removed only on availability of
regularly selected persons.
7. Learned State counsel submits that the State Government is in the
process of making regular selections
8. Learned counsel for the State has relied upon the judgment
passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in LPA-736-2024 titled as State
of Haryana and others Vs. Sneh Lata preferred by the State of Haryana
against the order passed by the Single Bench in CWP-24822-2023 directing to
consider the petitioner for re-adjustment as Displaced Extension Lecturer in
Physics in terms of the policy was challenged. The Division Bench after
4 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053775-DB
{2024:PHHC:053775-DB}
LPA-592-2022 (O&M) in CWP-24619-2021
and other connected cases
considering the Policy dated 04.03.2020 and the amendment made therein on
13.05.2023, and also considering that the cut-off date had been stayed by this
Court in Mahesh Kumar's case, proceeded to held as under:-
"7. Apparently, vide amendment made on 13.05.2023, the
Displaced Eligible Extension Lecturers were classified as ones
who cleared the eligibility on or before 04.03.2020. It is not
disputed that the said clause is subject matter of challenge in
Mahesh Kumar (supra) and was stayed vide interim order dated
26.05.2023 on the ground that it was irrational and was not
supported by a valid reason as to why people who obtained such
eligibility after 04.03.2020 would not be eligible and what was
the significance of the said date vis-à-vis the eligibility of the
candidates who were working as Extension Lecturers. It was in
such circumstances, the Director, Higher Education, Haryana
had rejected the case on the ground that the writ petitioner had
not worked as an Extension Lecturer even for a single day
having obtained the qualification of NET in the year 2022 i.e.
after the policy dated 04.03.2020and when she was not in
service.
8. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion
that once the cut-off date has been stayed upon which reliance
has been placed in the impugned order and passed prior to when
the order was passed by the authorities, the said order cannot be
sustained as the authorities had to take into consideration the
said fact. Resultantly, keeping in view the above, we are of the
considered opinion that the reasoning which has been arrived at
by the Learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity
as it is for the State to make best use of the duly qualified person
who are seeking employment as Extension Lecturers."
9. In another case i.e. CWP-2038-2024, tiled as Neha Rani Vs.
State of Haryana and Others, subsequent memorandum dated 14.12.2023
which amended the memorandum dated 13.05.2023 discussed herein above,
5 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053775-DB
{2024:PHHC:053775-DB}
LPA-592-2022 (O&M) in CWP-24619-2021
and other connected cases
was challenged before this Court. The Division Bench, in which one of us was
not a member, examined the subsequent memorandum dated 14.12.2023
which laid down that all those Displaced Extension Lecturers, who acquired
eligibility on or before 30.06.2023 and had worked for at least one
semester/90 days in one academic year, were to be treated eligible for
consideration for adjustment in the Colleges having sufficient workload held
as under:-
"6. The petitioner has not challenged the order dated
20.07.2017. Since the benefit is to be given only to eligible
Extension Lecturers, the policy was introduced on 13.05.2023,
but since it allowed even those who were not eligible Extension
Lecturers and had put a cut-off date as 04.03.2020, this Court
had stayed the said policy. Now, the amendment has been made
which takes into consideration the said aspect and all those
displaced Extension Lecturers who acquired eligibility on or
before 30.06.2023, and had worked for at least one semester/90
days in one academic year, have been treated eligible for
consideration for adjustment in the colleges having sufficient
workload. Thus, learned counsel submits that there is no
arbitrariness, or the policy cannot be said to be discriminatory.
7. We have considered the submissions.
8. Individual grievance of any individual person cannot be a
ground to quash a policy decision. The two aspects which this
Court would have to examine are whether the policy laid down is
reasonable, and secondly it has a nexus to the purpose sought to
be achieved as has been held by the Supreme Court in Kuldeep
Singh vs. Govt. of NCT, Delhi reported in 2006(6) SCALE 588.
Since the notification dated 04.12.2023 conforms to the
observations made by this Court in CWP-11653-2023 dated
26.05.2023 whereby the earlier decision taken by the Government
had been stayed, no further interference is warranted."
6 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053775-DB
{2024:PHHC:053775-DB}
LPA-592-2022 (O&M) in CWP-24619-2021
and other connected cases
10. We find that in the present appeal, the appellant is challenging
the order passed by the learned Single Bench dated 18.04.2022 whereby cut-
off date as mentioned in the Policy dated 04.03.2020 was upheld by the
learned Single Bench.
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 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 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 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
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 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
7 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053775-DB
{2024:PHHC:053775-DB}
LPA-592-2022 (O&M) in CWP-24619-2021
and other connected cases
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 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 to 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.
14. In view of the aforesaid, we do not accede to the request made by
learned counsel for the appellants that those who do not possess the minimum
UGC qualifications should be allowed to be continued till the regular
selections are made.
15. The State Government shall take steps to relieve such persons
and shall also positively take steps for advertising regular posts. All
candidates, who are working and eligible, would be free to apply. In such
circumstances, the benefit of age relaxation also be given to such persons.
That apart, we direct the State Government that initiation of the selection
process and issuance of advertisement shall be done within a period six
months henceforth.
8 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053775-DB
{2024:PHHC:053775-DB}
LPA-592-2022 (O&M) in CWP-24619-2021
and other connected cases
16. In view of the aforesaid observations, all the Appeals are
disposed of.
17. All pending application(s) stand disposed of accordingly.
[SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA]
JUDGE
[SUDEEPTI SHARMA]
April 22, 2024 JUDGE
Ess Kay
Whether speaking / reasoned : Yes / No
Whether Reportable : Yes / No
9 of 9
