Manveen Benipal vs State of Punjab

Rajesh Bindal, J.—The petitioner, who was a candidate for the post of Social Studies Mistress, is before this court impugning the action of the respondents, whereby she has been declared ineligible for the post. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that advertisement was issued on 7.5.2011 inviting applications for 3,442 posts of Master/Mistress, out of which 899 posts were meant for Social Studies Master/Mistress. The applications were to be submitted on-line upto 30.5.2011. The educational qualifications required were degree in B.A. with two specified subjects in all three years and B.Ed. The conditions also provided that the candidate should have passed Teacher Eligibility Test as per the guidelines issued by National Council for Teacher Education under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009 (for short, ''the Act''). The petitioner submitted her application on 20.5.2011 specifically mentioning that she has already appeared in B.Ed. Examination. As Teacher Eligibility Test was not held in the State of Punjab for quite some time, the advertisement in question was challenged in this court by filing C.W.P. No. 21301 of 2011-Gurjinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others claiming that the test was being conducted for the first time on 3.7.2011, hence, some modification in the cut-off date was required. The writ petition was disposed of on 13.2.2012 with a direction to the competent authority to consider the matter and take a decision as the requirement of passing of Teacher Eligibility Test before 30.5.2011, when to itself was conducted for the first time on 3.7.2011, had created an anomalous situation. In pursuance to the aforesaid direction, fresh public notice was issued in the newspaper on 24.7.2012 specifying that the candidates who had not applied upto the last date, i.e., 30.5.2011, may apply again upto 1.8.2012. Thereafter, the provisional merit list for the post of Social Studies Mistress was uploaded on the website where the name of the petitioner figured at Sr. No. 777 with remarks "not eligible" due to passing of B.Ed. after 30.5.2011. As Teacher Eligibility Test was conducted for the first time in the State of Punjab on 3.7.2011, the petitioner had qualified the same.

Learned counsel further submitted that once the last date for submission of application was extended upto 1.8.2012, that would mean all the eligibility conditions stood extended upto that date. As the petitioner had qualified her B.Ed. examination on 5.7.2011, she should have been considered eligible as the same was before the extended cut-off date, namely, 1.8.2012. The action of the respondents in rejecting her candidature on the ground that she had passed her B.Ed. examination after the cut-off date is totally illegal and arbitrary.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the cut-off date as mentioned in the advertisement initially issued remained the same, namely, 30.5.2011 pertaining to all the conditions laid down in the advertisement. It is only on account of the anomaly pertaining to Teacher Eligibility Test having been conducted after the cutoff date, namely, 3.7.2011 that the Government extended the cut-off date only for the candidates who had passed Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test-2 in terms of the order passed in Gurjinder Singh''s case (supra) and could not apply upto the last date already fixed. It was specifically mentioned therein that rest of the conditions as contained in the advertisement shall remain in force. The candidates who had already applied need not to apply afresh. In the light of the aforesaid advertisement, where relaxation of the last date for submission of application was only with reference to the candidates who had passed their Teacher Eligibility Test later on, the petitioner was rightly declared ineligible as she was not having the qualification of B.Ed. on 30.5.2011.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

As per the advertisement for various posts of Teacher published in the newspaper on 7.5.2011, the eligible candidates were to apply on-line by filing their applications upto 30.5.2011. The candidate was required to have degree in Graduation with certain specified subjects with B.Ed. It was also required that the candidate should have passed Teacher Eligibility Test as per the guidelines issued by National Council for Teacher Education under the Act. As no Teacher Eligibility Test was conducted in the State of Punjab, the aforesaid condition was challenged before this Court in Gurjinder Singh''s case (supra). Finding that for the first time the test was conducted on 3.7.2011, the result of which was declared on 13.7.2011, this court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the authorities to take a conscious decision to remove this anomaly in the absence of which number of candidates would have remained ineligible. The relevant part of the order is extracted below:

"Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and if the facts noticed above were to be true, namely, that the Common Eligibility Test has been conducted first time in the State of Punjab on 3.7.2011 but the advertisement requires that such a test must have been passed before 30.5.2011, there is likely to be an anomalous situation as most of the candidates would be rendered ineligible. The matter, thus, requires serious consideration by the competent authority who must look into the matter and take a decision immediately. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the above noticed anomalous situation said to have been created due to the cut off date prescribed in the advertisement and take an appropriate decision as early as possible but not later than two months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order."

The result of the petitioner of B.Ed. examination was declared on 5.7.2011, which was after the cut-off date, namely, 30.5.2011. In terms of the judgment of Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others, a candidate, whose result had not been declared on the last date fixed for submission of application is not eligible as the result of examination does not relate back to the date of examination. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that extension in last date for submission of application should be considered for all the conditions laid down in the advertisement is totally misconceived and deserves to be rejected. Firstly, the public notice subsequently issued on 24.7.2012 specifically provided that the same is issued in pursuance to the order passed by this Court in Gurjinder Singh''s case (supra) with reference to the passing of Teacher Eligibility Test only for which the date was extended. If the contention of the petitioner is accepted, that would amount to issuing a fresh advertisement which will create number of new issues in the sense that many candidates, who had already applied, may become ineligible on account of age or other conditions and some candidates, who did not apply at that time on account of being not eligible on the cut-off date, will lose their chance. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.