Judgment:
CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.14201 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14201 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY12 2014 Ghasi Ram .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?.
2.
To be referred to the Reporters or not?.
3.
Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.
Present: Mr.R.K.Malik, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Sangram Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Sunil Nehra, Sr.D.A.G., Haryana, for the State.
***** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
(ORAL) Petitioner has approached this Court praying for quashing of the order dated 06.07.2011 (Anneuxre P-10) passed by the respondent vide which despite recommendation dated 27.10.2010 (Annexure P-9) made by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (for short 'the Commission') for appointment of the petitioner to the post of Principal, HES-II, the claim was rejected on the ground that the petitioner does not fulfill the eight yeaRs.teaching experience as Lecturer with effect from 2003 i.e.the date of passing of the post-graduation (M.A.in English) with 50% marks nor two yeaRs.experience as Lecturer upto 27.02.2008 i.e.date of issuance of letter from Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary, Govt.
of Haryana, Industrial Training and Vocational Education Department changing the nomenclature of Language Teacher in English and Hindi to Lecturer in Harish Kumar 2014.02.18 09:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.14201 of 2011 -2- English and Hindi, while applying for the post of Principal on 03.07.2007.
Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner was appointed as a Language Teacher in English in the Department of Industrial Training & Vocational Education, Haryana, on ad hoc basis on 19.11.2007.
He was regularized on the said post as such with effect from 01.10.2003.
Language Teacher in Vocational Education, Haryana, teaches the subject of English and Hindi to the students of 10+1 and 10+2 in the vocational institutions.
They sought parity for being treated as Lecturers making them eligible for the grant of the same pay scale.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 09.05.1997 (Annexure P-2) in Civil Appeal No.2450 of 1995, titled 'State of Haryana & another versus Ram Chander & another', held that Vocational Masters of technical institutes entitled to the same benefit as Lecturers in the Education Department as they were able to establish equal quality and quantity of work carried out by them.
In any case, vide instructions dated 19.03.1998 (Anneuxre P-3) Government of Haryana, Department of Education, took a decision that since the Language Teachers working in Vocational Educational Institutes having 50% marks in M.A./M.Sc.
are having similar qualifications as prescribed for Lecturers they may be treated at par with Lecturers for the purpose of eligibility for direct recruitment to the post of Principal of Senior Secondary Schools.
This made the petitioner eligible for consideration for appointment of the post of Principal since he had passed his M.A.second time with more than 50% marks on 15.06.2003.
An advertisement dated 21.06.2007 issued by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission inviting the applications for appointment to the 17 posts of Principals (HES-II) for the Backward Class category.
Petitioner Harish Kumar 2014.02.18 09:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.14201 of 2011 -3- belongs to the Backward Class category and he applied in pursuance to the said advertisement for appointment to the post of Principal.
The claim of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents on the ground that he was not eligible for appointment to the post which action of the respondents was challenged by the petitioner by filing CWP No.5821 of 2008 along with one Shiv Kumar.
The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 19.08.2009 in the same terms as the order passed in CWP No.2981 of 2009 titled 'Rajbala & others versus The State of Haryana & another' decided on 23.07.2009.
In Rajbala & otheRs.case (supra) this Court observed 'since the petitioners have already been interviewed and their result have been kept in sealed cover, the writ petitions were disposed of with the direction to deal with the result after the decision of LPA No.725 of 2009 titled 'State of Haryana & another versus Rajinder Sharma' where similar claim as made by the petitioner had been accepted by the learned Single Judge pending in appeal before the Division Bench.
LPA No.725 of 2009 was decided by this Court vide order 09.11.2009 (Annexure P-8) dismissing the appeal of the State of Haryana.
Special Leave Petition No.1967 of 2010, titled 'State of Haryana & another versus Rajinder Sharma' along with Special Leave Petition No.2117 of 2010, titled 'State of Haryana & another versus Rajinder Sharma' were stated to be pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Counsel for the parties informed the Court that the said SLPs are still pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and no decision thereon has till date come.
In the light of the decision in LPA No.725 of 2009 which went in favour of the petitioners as the State appeal was dismissed and in Harish Kumar 2014.02.18 09:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.14201 of 2011 -4- compliance with the order dated 19.08.2009 passed by this Court in CWP No.5821 of 2008 preferred by the petitioner along with one Shiv Kumar, the Commission recommended the name of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Principal vide letter dated 27.10.2010 (Annexure P-9).On receipt of the recommendation made by the Commission, the Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Haryana, proceeded to reject the recommendation of the Commission on the ground that the petitioner did not possess the requisite experience required for appointment for the post of Principal as he did not have the experience as a Lecturer.
This order is impugned by the petitioner through the present writ petition.
It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that as per the statutory rules governing the service and the advertisement issued by the Commission dated 21.06.2007, the petitioner was required to possess the educational qualification of M.A./M.Sc./M.Com.
with 2nd Division and experience in case of a Lecturer eight yeaRs.teaching experience as Master/Lecturer out of which at least two yeaRs.experience should be as a Lecturer in Government/recognized school.
In the light of the decision of the Government of Haryana dated 19.03.1998, the experience rendered by the petitioner as a Language Teacher of Vocational Educational Institute was required to be treated at par with Lecturers for the purpose of eligibility for direct recruitment to the post of Principal of the Senior Secondary School.
The petitioner who had been in service without interruption since 19.11.1997 had the requisite experience for the said post.
He contends that even if it is assumed that the petitioner acquired his post-graduation with 50% marks on 15.06.2003 and the experience as a Lecturer is to be treated after possessing the said qualification also the petitioner would have more Harish Kumar 2014.02.18 09:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.14201 of 2011 -5- than four yeaRs.experience on the last of receipt of applications i.e.21.07.2007.
He, thus, contends that the impugned order being not in consonance with the statutory rules requires to be set aside and the writ petition be allowed by directing respondent to appoint the petitioner as Principal from the date other batchmates who are lower in merit than the petitioner were appointed.
Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner is working as a Language Teacher and he has never performed the duty of a Lecturer.
The experience which has been gained by the petitioner as a Language Teacher cannot be equated as that of Lecturer.
In any case, the petitioner became eligible for consideration for the post of Principal on attaining 50% marks in post-graduation on 15.06.2003 and from that date, he does not have the requisite experience of eight years'.
He contends that as per the essential qualifications advertised, experience has to be counted from the date candidate acquires the essential educational qualifications for the post and any experience gained prior thereto cannot be taken into consideration.
In support of this contention, counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ajay Kumar versus State of Haryana, 2004 (1) SCT888 Prayer has, thus, been made for dismissal of the writ petition.
I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and with their able assistance have gone through the records of the case.
The fiRs.ground which has been taken by the respondent for rejecting the claim of the petitioner with regard to the fact that he does not possess the experience as a Lecturer deserves rejection in the light of the Harish Kumar 2014.02.18 09:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.14201 of 2011 -6- decision of the Government of Haryana dated 19.03.1998 where it has been stated as follows:- “Subject: Direct recruitment to the post of Principal, Govt.
Senior Secondary Schools.
I am directed to refer to the subject noted above and to say that large number of representations have been received from Language Teachers working in vocational institutions who are teaching +2 classes in these institutions.
They have pointed out the educational qualifications and pay scales for the posts of Language Teachers in Vocational Education Department & Lecturers in Secondary Education Deptt.
are the same but in the qualification prescribed for direct recruitment to the post of Principals of Govt.
Sec.
Schools the experience on the post of Language Teacher of Vocational Education institute has not been treated equal to of Lecturer in senior Secondary Schools.
It has now been decided that since the Language Teachers working in Vocational Education Institutes having 50% marks in M.A., M.Sc.
has similar qualification as prescribed for LectureRs.they may be treated as par with Lecturers for the purpose of eligibility for direct recruitment to the post of Principals of Senior Secondary Schools.”
.
This communication is addressed by the Financial Commissioner & Secretary to Government of Haryana, Education Department to Haryana Public Service Commission.
As per the above decision, there is no doubt left that the Language Teacher working in a Vocational Educational Institute who acquires the qualifications of Harish Kumar 2014.02.18 09:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.14201 of 2011 -7- M.A./M.Sc.
with 50% marks, has to be treated at par with the Lecturer for the purpose of eligibility for direct recruitment to the post of Principal of a Senior Secondary School.
Admittedly, petitioner obtained the post-graduate qualification of M.A.on 15.06.2003 with more than 50% marks.
The last date of receipt of the applications i.e.21.07.2007 and thus the petitioner had more than four yeaRs.experience as a Lecturer.
In any case, from 1997 till the date he acquired the qualification of M.A.with 50% marks is to be treated as a experience as a Master.
If that experience is added it would exceed more than nine yeaRs.as Master.
The petitioner would, thus, be eligible for consideration of appointment as the essential qualifications prescribed under the advertisement read as follows:- “Educational Qualifications: 1.
M.A./M.Sc./M.Com.
with 2nd division.
2.
B.T./B.Ed.
or its equivalent.
3.
(i) In case of Head Master, 8 years teaching experience as Master out of which 2 years experience should be in an administrative capacity as Head of High School.
(ii) In case of Lecturer, 8 years teaching experience as Master/Lecturer out of which at least 2 years experience should be as Lecturer in Govt./Recognised School.
(iii) Hindi/Sanskrit upto Matric Standard.”
.
A perusal of the above would show that the experience gained by a candidate is nowhere said to be after attaining the minimum educational qualification prescribed for the said post.
What is required is eight yeaRs.teaching experience as Master/Lecturer out of which at least two yeaRs.should be as a Lecturer in Government/Recognized School.
Had it been the intention of the Rule that the experience should be after acquiring Harish Kumar 2014.02.18 09:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.14201 of 2011 -8- minimum qualifications, the same would have been specifically stated therein.
Judgment relied upon by the counsel for the respondent in Ajay Kumar's case (supra) further fortifies the conclusion which has been drawn by this Court as in the said case after providing for the essential qualifications a note was appended which said that the required experience should be after attaining the requisite qualification, which note is missing in the essential qualifications as has been prescribed for appointment to the post of Principal in the advertisement and in the statutory rules in the present case.
That being the position, the impugned order dated 06.07.2011 (Annexure P-10) cannot sustain and is hereby set aside.
Direction is issued to the respondent to appoint the petitioner to the post of Principal with effect from the date persons lower in merit than the petitioner have been issued the appointment.
He shall also be entitled to all the consequential benefits including the arrears etc.In the light of the fact that the petitioner is serving as a Lecturer (Language Teacher).the difference in pay shall be adjusted by the respondent before making payment of the arreaRs.The needful be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
The writ petition stands allowed.
February 12, 2014 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) Harish JUDGE Harish Kumar 2014.02.18 09:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document