Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sandeep Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Others on 9 May, 2024
CWP-3168-2022 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:065149
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065149
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
238 CWP-3168-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision: 09.05.2024
Sandeep Singh and others ..Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
Present: None for the petitioners.
Mr. Swapan Shorey, DAG, Punjab.
***
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed for quashing the impugned
corrigendum/notice dated 18.01.2022 (Annexure P6) issued to the advertisement
dated 08.01.2022 (Annexure P1), prescribing the additional qualification of
passing the Punjab State Teachers Eligibility Test-2 (PSTET-2) for recruitment to
the post of Art and Craft Teachers.
2. There has been no representation on behalf of the petitioners on the
last date of hearing. The position remains the same even today, despite the case
having been called out twice.
3. Learned State counsel refers to judgment passed by the Division
Bench in Sandip Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others, CWP-1914-
2022, decided on 03.02.2022, wherein the similar issue was decided against the
petitioners, against which SLP was also dismissed on 28.03.2022. The relevant
paras of Sandip Singh (supra) read thus:-
"The petitioners, in the present petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, challenge the educational
qualifications provided in Appendix B to the Punjab Educational
(Teaching Cadre) Group C Service Rules, 2018 as notified on
21.05.2018 (Annexure P-7) and further amended on 16.07.2021
(Annexure P-8), which prescribe the necessary qualifications for
the post of Art and Craft Teachers. The challenge has also been
1 of 3
CWP-3168-2022 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:065149
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065149
raised to the advertisement dated 08.01.2022 (Annexure P-9) and
the corrigendum dated 18.01.2022 (Annexure P-10) wherein,
applications have been invited for filling up 250 vacancies of Art
and Craft Teachers, keeping in view the amended Rules.
The grouse as such of the petitioners is that they possess the
qualification of Matric and 2 years' diploma in Art and Craft and
they were duly eligible under The Punjab State Education Class-
III (School Cadre) Service Rules, 1978 (in short '1978 Rules'),
which had further been amended on 08.07.1995 (Annexure P-5).
Therefore, they have been wrongly rendered totally ineligible for
recruitment to the post of Art and Craft Teachers. No time as
such has been given to them to acquire higher qualifications to
become eligible under the impugned Rules and, therefore, they
have become over age. Similarly, reliance upon NCTE
notification dated 29.07.2011 (Annexure P-3) is also placed that
till such time the NCTE lays down the minimum qualifications
in respect of such teachers, the prescription of the eligibility
criteria should not have been enhanced. Admittedly, challenge is
also made to the fact that the additional qualification of passing
of Punjab State Teachers' Eligibility Test-2 has been wrongly
made mandatory.
xx xx xx
The advertisement in question dated 08.01.2022 (Annexure P-
9) initially as such for the 250 posts did not mention the
substituted educational qualifications of 2021 and necessary
corrigendum was issued on 18.01.2022 (Annexure P-10)
wherein, the recruitment as per the substituted eligibility criteria
was also incorporated. The condition as such of passing Punjab
State Teachers' Eligibility Test-2 for filling up the said posts was
also made the requisite requirement.
Admittedly, the petitioners are Matric pass and diploma
holders and, thus, cannot claim to have any vested right as such
for consideration on the ground of hardship which has been
alleged to be caused. It is for the employer to see what are the
requisite educational qualifications for the teachers that it wishes
to employ and it is not for this Court as such, to substitute its
opinion on the strength of the argument which is raised by
counsel for the petitioners that hardship has been caused to them.
Nothing as such could be pointed out which would go on to
show that the prescription of higher qualifications, which are
now in the form of Graduation with B.Ed from a recognized
university or institution and having two years' diploma in the
same alongwith the graduation degree can be said to be bad.
xx xx xx
Keeping in view the settled position of law, the argument
which is sought to be raised that vide notification of the NCTE
dated 29.07.2011 (Annexure P-3), it had been prescribed that for
teachers of Art Education, Craft Education, Home Science, Work
Education, etc. the existing eligibility norms prescribed by the
State Government and other school management were to be
applicable till such time the NCTE lays down the minimum
qualifications in respect of such teachers is without any basis.
Once statutory Rules as such have been framed under Article
2 of 3
CWP-3168-2022 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:065149
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065149
309 of the Constitution of India, this Court is of the opinion that
the State Government is justified and had only upgraded the
basic eligibility criteria as such by prescribing Graduation for
filling up the posts of Art and Craft Teachers. No fault as such
can be found in such action. It is settled principle that it is for the
employer to choose the qualifications which are required for
filling up the posts and it is not for the candidates as such to hold
out what should be the requirement.
The argument that for Elementary Trained Teachers, the State
as such had given a concession regarding the candidates who
have done or are doing elementary training course with 10+2
qualification would be considered for employment as one time
measure cannot be claimed as a matter of right as such. In such
circumstances, keeping in view the above observations, no such
enforceable right lies with the petitioners to claim such
concession in case some concession has been granted to separate
set of persons.
In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that prima
facie, no case is made out to entertain the present writ petition
and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine."
4. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed.
( AMAN CHAUDHARY )
09.05.2024 JUDGE
ashok
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
