Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sarita And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 7 May, 2024

Author: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma

Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma

                                  Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063225-DB




CWP-9518-2024
         2024 (O&M)                                                                         -1-


113
       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH

                                                       CWP-9518-2024 (O&M)
                                                    Date of Decision: 07.05.2024
                                                                           .2024
Sarita 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. Sandeep Bhardwaj,, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, DAG, Haryana.

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

1. The petitioner by way of this petition assails the policy dated

04.03.2020.

2. We find that the policy dated 04.03.2020 was amended by the

respondents on 13.05.2023 and then on 14.12.2023.

3. This Court in LPA No.592 of 2022 in Neeraj Bhardwaj alias Neeraj

others, decided on 22.04.2024 vs. State of Haryana and others, 22.04.2024,, also

examined the said policy and passed the following order:

"10.

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 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

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063225-DB

CWP-9518-2024 2024 (O&M) -2-

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 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 Stat 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 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 es 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 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 the regular selections are made.

2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063225-DB

CWP-9518-2024 2024 (O&M) -3-

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 circumstance 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.

16. In view of the aforesaid said observations, all the Appeals are disposed of."

4. It is also informed by the learned counsel for the State that in CWP

No.6968 of 2020 in Suman Devi vs. State of Haryana and others others,,

decided on 22.09.2020, the policy was independently examined and the

Court reached to the conclusion that the Extension Lecturers are only

required as stop gap arrangement. The policy dated 04.03.2020 was

also upheld. The challenge to the said judgment failed before the

Supreme Court in SLP No.6738-6739/2022, No.6738 6739/2022, decided on 09.

09.01.2023.

5. In view of above, the arguments and contentions raised in the present

petition have become academic.

6. The petition is accordingly dismissed.