Jagwinder Singh vs State of Punjab

Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.—Initially this writ petition was filed by the petitioners for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for giving appointment as JBT teacher on the ground that the two years JBT course certificate obtained by them from the State of Rajasthan was equivalent to the JBT/ETT certificate issued by the State of Punjab. However, pursuant to issuance of notice of motion, the respondents appended a letter dated 12.5.1995 along with their reply depicting therein that the JBT course certificate from Rajasthan issued to the candidates prior to 16.8.1990 would only be considered. Consequently, the petitioners filed an amended writ petition so as to challenge letter dated 12.5.1995. The petitioners have now made an additional prayer for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing letter dated 12.5.1995.

The undisputed facts, in a narrow compass, are being noticed as under:-

Respondent No. 2 - Chairman Departmental Selection Committee (Primary), Department of Education, Punjab invited applications from the domicile of Punjab for appointment as JBT Teachers against 700 vacant posts and the process for filling up the said posts had commenced on 12.7.1996 by issuing interview letters to the prospective candidates. The petitioners appeared for interview on 30.7.1996.

However, upon receipt of information from some private source to the effect that the JBT/ETT certificate issued by the State of Rajasthan was not being considered at par with the one issued by the State of Punjab, the petitioners visited the office of respondent No. 2 to ascertain the factual position. It was informed to them that the respondents have done so as an administrative measure in order to protect the interests of domiciles of Punjab. Eventually, the names of the petitioners did not figure in the final select list. The petitioners are alleged to have made certain correspondence with the respondents but to no avail. Hence, this writ petition.

In response to the notice of motion, the respondents have filed their written statement and after going through the same, the solitary plea raised to resist the prayer of the petitioners is that it is the prerogative of the State to frame any policy, to recognize/derecognize/revoke the diplomas, degrees and such other training courses of other States so as to protect the interests of its own domiciles.

Hearing has been provided to the parties while perusing the paper book.

Facts of the case are clear and self speaking. The JBT/ETT course from the State of Rajasthan was duly recognized by the State of Punjab vide letter dated 9.5.1960 (Annexure P-5). Such course came to be de-recognized vide letter dated 12.5.1995 retrospectively w.e.f. 16.8.1990. The petitioners had admittedly completed the said course in the year 1995. Thus, on and prior to the date of de-recognition of course certificates issued by the State of Rajasthan, i.e., 12.5.1995, the petitioners had already joined and completed the said course and it was on the basis of such knowledge of recognition of the said course that the petitioners had joined the said course. Since the said course came to be de-recognized after the petitioners had completed the same, they could not have supposed to apprehend such a situation. Thus, a legitimate expectation which the petitioners had nurtured while taking admission to the course in question, had abruptly been snapped.

Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Suresh Pal and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, urging that in identical facts, Hon''ble Supreme Court had allowed the appeal filed by the candidates seeking appointment to the post of Physical Training Instructor in Govt. Schools on the basis of Certificate course in Physical Education obtained from Shri Hanuman Vayayam Prasarak Mandal, Amrvati, which had been recognized by the State in 1975. In that case, the State Govt. had de-recognized the said course on 9th January, 1985 when the petitioners therein were receiving instructions in the aforesaid recognized institute. Allowing the appeal of the petitioners, Hon''ble Supreme Court had observed that:-

"... it would be unjust to tell the petitioners now that though at the time of their joining the course it was recognized, yet they cannot be given the benefit of such recognition and the certificates obtained by them would be futile, because during the pendency of the course it was recognized by the State Govt. on 9th January, 1985."

Gauging the facts of the instant case in the light of the above observations of Hon''ble Supreme Court, the case in hand is on a better footing in favour of the petitioners, inasmuch, as in the instant case, the petitioners had completed their course even prior to the advertisement inviting applications for appointment as JBT Teachers. What is surprising in this case, is that the respondents authorities had de-recognized the said course on 12.5.1995 retrospectively, i.e., w.e.f. 1990 without offering any rational behind this action.

Counsel for the State has relied upon Amritpal Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 1996 (1) CLJ (Service) 124 to contend that mere fact that the petitioners had been called for interview, did not make them eligible. In the cited authority, action of the respondents in not selecting the petitioners for appointment to the post of Agriculture Master was held to be neither illegal nor arbitrary nor unfair. However, this authority does not help the respondents as the facts in the said case is altogether different from the facts of the present case. In view of the above discussion, I find that there is merit in the petition. Sequelly, the respondents are directed to call the petitioners for interview for the post of JBT teachers and consider them for appointment to the said post, if otherwise found suitable.

This petition is allowed to the above extent.