Susheela Kumari and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1120760
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJan-17-2014
AppellantSusheela Kumari and Others
RespondentState of Haryana and Others
Excerpt:
civil writ petition no.804 of 2014 {1} in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh date of decision: january 17, 2014 susheela kumari & others ...petitioners versus state of haryana & others ...respondents coram: hon'ble mr.justice augustine george masih present: mr.vikram sheoran, advocate, for the petitioners.***** augustine george masih, j.(oral) petitioners have approached this court, praying for quashing the advertisement dated 08.11.2012 (annexure p-5).which requires qualification of diploma in elementary teachers training cours.prior to the cut off date as an eligibility condition for a candidate to apply for the post of primary teacher. it is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that some of the petitioners had taken admission in d.ed. cours.for the sessions 2009-11 and 2010-12 from the j&k state board of school education. unfortunately for the petitioners.the results of these courses were declared in january, 2013. petitioners.although have passed their htet examination in the year 2011, but have been rendered ineligible because of late declaration of the result, for which the petitioners cannot be held responsible and cannot be penalised for the same. his further contention is that the candidates, who had passed htet test in the year 2013, have also been provisionally interviewed by the haryana school teachers selection kumar ramesh 2014.01.20 09:45 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh civil writ petition no.804 of 2014 {2} board-respondent no.3 and, therefore, if such a relaxation has been granted to the htet candidates for the selection, why should such a benefit be not granted to the petitioners.whose result has been declared in january, 2013. he, therefore, prays that the condition as imposed in the advertisement dated 08.11.2012 deserves to be quashed. i have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners and with his assistance have gone through the records of the case. for making appointment to any post, there has to be certain minimum required qualifications. in the present case, the qualifications have been provided under the statutory rules. the said conditions, thus, cannot be waived. as regards the cut off date for eligibility of a candidate, the same is also required to be prescribed so that there is finality to a process of selection and, therefore, fixing of cut off date for receipt of the applications, i.e., 08.12.2012 by the respondents cannot be said to be arbitrary. unfortunately for the petitioners.the result of the qualification, i.e., d.ed. was declared on 08.01.2013, which is after the last date of receipt of applications. the petitioners are, thus, ineligible for consideration for appointment to the post of primary teacher. the next contention as has been raised by the counsel for the petitioners that the candidates, who have cleared their htet test in 2013, have been allowed to participate in the selection process by the respondents, although the condition of passing the htet test was also incorporated in the advertisement, which was 08.11.2012 and the last date being 08.12.2012, the same benefit be extended to the petitioners.this plea of the kumar ramesh 2014.01.20 09:45 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh civil writ petition no.804 of 2014 {3} counsel for the petitioners also cannot be accepted in the light of the fact that such an action taken by the respondents is in pursuance to an order passed by the division bench of this court, where keeping in view the fact that htet test in 2012 was not held, the division bench, on provisional basis, permitted the candidates, who had passed the htet test held in the year 2013 to participate in the interview. this action taken by the respondents is not on their own but as per the directions issued by this court. there being no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. january 17, 2014 ( augustine george masih ) ramesh judge kumar ramesh 2014.01.20 09:45 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh
Judgment:

Civil Writ Petition No.804 of 2014 {1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: January 17, 2014 Susheela Kumari & others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr.Vikram Sheoran, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.***** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.(ORAL) Petitioners have approached this Court, praying for quashing the advertisement dated 08.11.2012 (Annexure P-5).which requires qualification of Diploma in Elementary Teachers Training CouRs.prior to the cut off date as an eligibility condition for a candidate to apply for the post of Primary Teacher.

It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that some of the petitioners had taken admission in D.Ed.

CouRs.for the Sessions 2009-11 and 2010-12 from the J&K State Board of School Education.

Unfortunately for the petitioneRs.the results of these courses were declared in January, 2013.

PetitioneRs.although have passed their HTET Examination in the year 2011, but have been rendered ineligible because of late declaration of the result, for which the petitioners cannot be held responsible and cannot be penalised for the same.

His further contention is that the candidates, who had passed HTET Test in the year 2013, have also been provisionally interviewed by the Haryana School Teachers Selection Kumar Ramesh 2014.01.20 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No.804 of 2014 {2} Board-respondent No.3 and, therefore, if such a relaxation has been granted to the HTET candidates for the selection, why should such a benefit be not granted to the petitioneRs.whose result has been declared in January, 2013.

He, therefore, prays that the condition as imposed in the advertisement dated 08.11.2012 deserves to be quashed.

I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners and with his assistance have gone through the records of the case.

For making appointment to any post, there has to be certain minimum required qualifications.

In the present case, the qualifications have been provided under the statutory rules.

The said conditions, thus, cannot be waived.

As regards the cut off date for eligibility of a candidate, the same is also required to be prescribed so that there is finality to a process of selection and, therefore, fixing of cut off date for receipt of the applications, i.e., 08.12.2012 by the respondents cannot be said to be arbitrary.

Unfortunately for the petitioneRs.the result of the qualification, i.e., D.Ed.

was declared on 08.01.2013, which is after the last date of receipt of applications.

The petitioners are, thus, ineligible for consideration for appointment to the post of Primary Teacher.

The next contention as has been raised by the counsel for the petitioners that the candidates, who have cleared their HTET test in 2013, have been allowed to participate in the selection process by the respondents, although the condition of passing the HTET test was also incorporated in the advertisement, which was 08.11.2012 and the last date being 08.12.2012, the same benefit be extended to the petitioneRs.this plea of the Kumar Ramesh 2014.01.20 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No.804 of 2014 {3} counsel for the petitioners also cannot be accepted in the light of the fact that such an action taken by the respondents is in pursuance to an order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, where keeping in view the fact that HTET test in 2012 was not held, the Division Bench, on provisional basis, permitted the candidates, who had passed the HTET test held in the year 2013 to participate in the interview.

This action taken by the respondents is not on their own but as per the directions issued by this Court.

There being no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed.

January 17, 2014 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) ramesh JUDGE Kumar Ramesh 2014.01.20 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh