Punjab-Haryana High Court
Haryana Staff Selection Commission vs Monika Balwaria And Others on 19 March, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039768-DB
{2024:PHHC:039768-DB}
240
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
LPA-1509-2019 (O&M)
in CWP-27624-2018
Date of Decision: 19.03.2024
HARYANA STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION THROUGH ITS
SECRETARY
........Appellant
V/s.
MONIKA BALWARIA AND OTHERS ........Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
Mr. S.S. Brar, Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Ms. Tejaswini, Advocate for the applicant
(proposed Respondent No.4 to 9) in CM-2253-LPA-2022.
***
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral)
1. The present Appeal is preferred by the State of Haryana
assailing the order dated 14.03.2019 passed by the learned Single Bench of
this Court in CWP-27624-2018, whereby learned Single Bench has granted
the benefit of exemption made vide notification dated 02.07.2012 to the
respondent No.1 (Writ Petitioner in CWP-27624-2018) of qualifying only
two out of four subjects of Science for the purpose for selection as a Science
Teacher (TGT) and allowed the Writ Petition.
2. Learned State counsel has pointed out that learned Single Bench
has taken into consideration the notification dated 02.07.2012 and granted
exemption to the respondent No.1 erroneously and since the notification
dated 02.07.2012 amended the Haryana State Education School Cadre,
(Group B) Service Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "Group-B Rules")
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039768-DB
{2024:PHHC:039768-DB}
LPA-1509-2019 (O&M)
in CWP-27624-2018
and the said Rules were only in relation to the PGT Teachers and not for the
TGT Teachers. It is submitted that the one-time exemption is granted by
introducing a transitional provision under Rule 19A of the said Rules, was
only with respect to the exemption of having passed three relevant subjects as
pre-qualification for participation for the post of PGT Teacher alone. Such a
transitional provision was not introduced for the post of TGT Teacher and the
services of the TGT Teachers continued to be governed by the Haryana
School Education (Group-C) State Cadre Service Rules, 2012 (hereinafter
referred to as "Group-C Rules") which required a candidate to have three
Science subjects as pre-qualification for participation in the selection.
3. It is an admitted position that respondent No.1 did not qualify
the B.Sc. with three subjects upto the last date of submission of the
application form. She was only having subjects of Chemistry and Zoology in
B.Sc. It was only later on, in the year 2017, the respondent No.1 passed the
additional subject of Botany. Therefore, in the selections which were
conducted vide advertisement dated 28.06.2015, respondent No.1 could not
be said to be qualified for participation and thus, her candidature was
cancelled rightly. Learned Single Bench has, therefore, erred in allowing the
Writ Petitioner.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 supports the
judgment passed by the learned Single Bench and submits that so far as the
1998 Rules (unamended Rules) are concerned, the same were meant for the
PGT Teachers and if the transitional provision has been introduced vide
notification dated 02.07.2012, the same is required to be read for Group-C
Teachers also.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039768-DB
{2024:PHHC:039768-DB}
LPA-1509-2019 (O&M)
in CWP-27624-2018
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 further submits that when
the 2012 Rules were introduced, immediately thereafter the petitioner
pursued her studies in the subject of Botany also and completed the same
within three years thereto and therefore, respondent No.1 ought to be treated
as qualified for the purpose of selection.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 further submits that the
order passed by the learned Single Bench has to be understood to introduce
the transitional provision also for Group-C Teachers namely; TGT Teachers
as there cannot be any discrimination between the PGT and TGT Teachers
for the purpose of granting the transitional benefit. The order passed by the
learned Single Bench, therefore, ought not be interfered with.
7. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for both
the parties and perused the record available.
8. Learned Single Bench, while noticing that respondent No.1
possessed the B.Sc. in Chemistry and Zoology and that she passed additional
subject of Botany after the closing date of submission of application form,
was although not eligible but the notification dated 02.07.2012 gave a
one-time measure to the persons who were fulfilling criteria of Rules of
2012, by invoking Rule 19A and therefore, the learned Single Bench
proceeded to allow the Writ Petition holding that respondent No.1 had
already cleared two subjects and had also cleared third subject of Botany
after the date of advertisement in April, 2017 (whereas it is actually in
August, 2017).
9. We are unable to accept the approach adopted by the learned
Single Bench as notification dated 02.07.2012 only makes an amendment in
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039768-DB
{2024:PHHC:039768-DB}
LPA-1509-2019 (O&M)
in CWP-27624-2018
the "Group-B Rules" which do not govern the conditions of appointment and
selection for the post of TGT Teachers. The Rules which governed the post in
question are "Group-C Rules" which have been notified separately. Unless an
amendment is made in the said Group-C Rules, benefit of the exemption
cannot be granted to a candidate who has applied for the post of TGT
Teacher. The Rule making authority has consciously not granted the
transitional provision to the TGT Teachers. The Court by way of
interpretation cannot introduce any Rule in the services.
10. In view of the aforesaid, the order passed by the learned Single
Bench cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Respondent No.1 cannot be
said to be eligible as was not qualified under the Group-C Rules or
appointment for the post of TGT Teacher (Science).
11. Accordingly, this Appeal is allowed and order dated 14.03.2019,
passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP-27624-2018 is set aside.
12. All pending applications filed in this case shall stand disposed of
accordingly.
13. The applications filed in this Appeal by the respective parties for
impleadment in the array of respondents are hereby dismissed. They are free
to take up their own matters before the learned Single Bench.
[SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA]
JUDGE
March 19, 2024 [SUDEEPTI SHARMA]
Ess Kay JUDGE
Whether speaking / reasoned : Yes / No
Whether Reportable : Yes / No
4 of 4
