Baljit Kaur vs State of Punjab and Others

Permod Kohli, J.—State of Punjab invited applications for the post of Headmistress.- -vide its advertisement No. 1/October, 2006, dated 21st October, 2006. As many as 21 posts of Headmistress were advertised. Qualifications/Experience prescribed for the said posts have been laid down in the recruitment rules, namely, Punjab Stale Education Class II (School Cadre) Service Rules, 1978 which read as under:

Sr. Designation Minimum qualifications Direct Promotion

No. of Posts and teaching experience appointment

1 Head Master/ Degree of a recognized 25% 75% from

Mistress University with BT/B. Ld or Senior Basic Training with the following minimi experience: im Masters and Mistresses

(i) In the case of M.A. or M. Sc. and or, M. Ld. 6 years

(ii) In the case of M.A. of M. Sc, B.T./B. Ld. 7 ye; arS

(iii) In the case of B.A. of B. Sc, B.T./B. Ld. 8 yea rs

(iv) In the case of D.P. Ld. and B.P. Ld. 8 years lithe date physical educe was introduced compu in the schools om ition Isory

(v) In the case of B.A./B.SM. Ld. 7 years Sc,

2 Lecturer for General Education, Lecturer for Training Institution (i) M.A., or M. Sc. or M. Com. 25% 75% from Masters and Mistresses

The Petitioner possesses qualification of B.A., B. Ed., M. Sc. She claims to be fully qualified under the Rules possessing the requisite qualifications as also 7 years experience. The Petitioner applied for the post under B.C. Female Category. The State of Punjab also laid down criteria for making selection. On the basis of the laid down criteria, Petitioner''s merit was determined at 67.875%. All the 17 candidates selected in the B.C. Female Category are having lesser marks than the Petitioner. The highest and lowest marks obtained by the selectees are 67.85% and 62.19% respectively. Having being denied the selection/appointment, the Petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking following directions:

XXX XXX XXX

(ii) for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the action of Respondents in not considering the Petitioner eligible for the post of Headmistress against the post advertised by the State of Punjab,-- vide advertisement No. 1/October, 2006 dated 21st October, 2006 by not taking into consideration the experience gained by the Petitioner as Lecturer, Zoology with effect from 29th November, 1999 to 31st March, 2000 and from 11th September, 2000 to 28th December, 2006 which experience the Petitioner has obtained while working as Lecturer, Zoology in G.K.S.M. Govt. College, Tanda Urmar, District Hoshiarpur stating that she was appointed as Part Time Lecturer though the Petitioner during this period had been working as full time lecturer against vacant regular sanctioned post of Lecturer, Zoology, such the action of the Respondents is illegal and arbitrary.

(iii) It is further, prayed that the Respondents be directed to consider the Petitioner eligible for the post of Headmistress under Backward Class Category and she should be issued appointment letter as per her merit.

The Respondents filed their detailed disclaimer. The claim of the Petitioner for selection/appointment has been resisted only on the ground that the experience possessed by the Petitioner was teaching in a College whereas the experience required for the post is teaching in a School. Though no other plea has been raised in the reply, however, Mr. Chahal. learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents has argued that the Petitioner''s experience was on a part-time basis which is not sufficient to give her appointment and for this, reference is made to the experience certificate dated 11th November, 2006 (Annexure P-7).

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length.

The merit position of the Petitioner is not disputed. It is now admitted position on record that the Petitioner secured the highest marks on the basis of laid down criteria in Female B.C. Category. The certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner indicates that the Petitioner had the requisite experience though the certificate indicates that the Petitioner was a part-time Lecturer. The statutory rule only prescribes seven years teaching experience. It is not provided under the Rules that the experience should be as a whole timer or in a particular institution. Only teaching experience is required which the Petitioner had to her credit at the time of making application for selection/appointment. The contention of Mr. Chahal that the experience required should have been in a school also cannot be accepted. The issue is otherwise also no more res integra having been determined by this Court in the case of Smt. Jagminder Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors. 1995 (1) ALJ 224 . In the aforesaid case, the same rules were under consideration and while considering the question of experience, the Court made following observations:

A look at the above quoted qualifications shows that the only requirement contemplated by the rules is of teaching experience. There is no reference to the requirement of a teaching experience on a particular post. Therefore, the view taken by the District Education Officer as well as the argument of learned Counsel for the Respondents that the Petitioner was not qualified because she did not possess 8 years teaching experience as Mistress is not supported by the provisions of the rules. Apparently, the District Education Officer had proceeded on an unfounded assumption that a candidate must possess requisite experience as Mistress to be qualified for appointment as Head Mistress. It also appears to me that the District Education Officer was misled by the instructions issued by the Government of Punjab,--vide annexures R-l and R-2. No doubt these instructions do contemplate the experience as Mistress for recruitment to the post of Head Mistress, but it is to be noted that the instructions contained in annexure R-l relate to the recruitment under the Punjab Education Rules to Class 111 posts and annexure R-2 only deals with counting of service as Lecturer to fulfil the condition of 8 years experience. These two documents cannot be pressed into service by the Respondents to support the view taken by the District Education Officer about the eligibility of the Petitioner for the simple reason that both these documents were issued much prior to the enactment of the Act of 1979 and the rules framed thereunder. These instructions were very much in existence when the legislature of Punjab enacted the Act of 1979 and the Government framed rules of 1981. The very fact that neither the Legislature nor the Government have thought it proper to incorporate the condition of teaching experience on the post of Mistress as a condition precedent for eligibility for recruitment as Head Mistress is indicative of the fact that the rulemaking authority has not considered it appropriate or necessary to prescribe the teaching experience as Mistress for the purpose of appointment on the post of 1 lead Mistress. In my considered view, the expression ""minimum teaching experience" for the purpose of recruitment on the post of Llead Mistress. Ordinarily, this Court cannot by the process of interpretation, add or subtract from the language of the statute and in my opinion, there are no compelling reasons for this Court to re-write the rule so as to read the requirement of teaching experience on the post of Mistress as condition for the purpose of appointment as Head Mistress.

In view of the clear interpretation of the aforesaid rule, the stand of the Respondents cannot be appreciated.

In view of the above, this petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to select the Petitioner as Headmistress on the basis of merit achieved by her in the process of selection and appoint the Petitioner on the post of Headmistress within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the competent authority. Needless to say the Petitioner''s seniority shall be determined on the basis of her merit in the selection. Though the Petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits, but she will be entitled to seniority, notional benefits of salary, increments, pay revision, if any.