Reena vs State of Haryana and Others

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition assailing the action of the Haryana School Teachers Selection Board (for short ''the Board'') in not treating her eligible for the post of PGT (Chemistry) for which an application had been submitted in pursuance to advertisement dated 30.8.2014. Brief facts are that the Board issued advertisement dated 30.8.2014 inviting applications for recruitment to various posts including 424 posts of PGT (Chemistry). The essential qualifications prescribed were M.Sc. Chemistry or Bio-Chemistry with at least 50% marks and B.Ed. from recognized University. That apart, certain qualifications were stipulated and which were common to all the posts advertised i.e. Matric with Hindi/Sanskrit or 10+2/B.A./M.A. with Hindi as one of the subjects and the certificate of having qualified the Haryana Teacher Eligibility Test (HTET)/School Teachers Eligibility Test (STET) of the respective subjects for the post applied and conducted by the Board of School Education Haryana, Bhiwani.

As per pleadings on record, the petitioner possesses the qualification of Matriculation, B.Sc., M.Sc. in Chemistry, B.Ed. and has passed NET (National Eligibility Test).

Case in a nut-shell put forth on behalf of the petitioner is that she possesses the essential qualifications prescribed for the post of PGT (Chemistry) and is also a Matriculate, but instead of qualifying the HTET/STET, she has qualified the NET. A plea of discrimination has been raised by referring to the advertisements dated 2.2.2013 and 27.9.2013, Annexures P1 and P2 respectively, issued by the Department of School Education, Haryana, Panchkula as also advertisement dated 31.7.2014, Annexure P3, issued by the Haryana School Shiksha Pariyojna Parishad, Panchkula, wherein for the post of PGT itself, the qualification of NET has been treated at par with HTET and STET. On the ground of parity, the petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of mandamus for directing the respondent-Board to treat her qualification of NET to be equivalent to HTET/STET and as such, to be eligible to be considered for the post of PGT (Chemistry) in pursuance to the advertisement dated 30.8.2014.

Counsel for the parties have been heard.

It has gone uncontroverted that the post of PGT (Chemistry) for which the petitioner has applied in pursuance to the advertisement dated 30.8.2014 is governed by the Haryana State Education School Cadre (Group B) Service Rules, 2012. The passing of HTET/STET is a mandatory requirement under the statutory Rules. Insofar as the advertisements at Annexures P1, P2 and P3 are concerned, whereby applications had been invited for appointment to various posts including posts of PGT in the Aarohi Model Schools, the pleadings on record are silent as regards the specific statutory Rules governing such posts. Inspite of a specific query having been raised, the relevant Rules have not even been produced by Mr. AS Tewatia, Advocate, during the course of hearing. Under such circumstances, the plea of discrimination and arbitrary action raised on behalf of the petitioner cannot even be examined.

The sole question that survives for consideration is, as to whether the petitioner on the basis of having qualified NET be considered as eligible for the post of PGT wherein requirement as per statutory Rules/advertisement, is for having passed STET/HTET?

Precisely, this very question came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 1206 of 2012 (Nirmalendu v. State of Haryana and others) decided on 4.12.2012 and it was held in the following terms:

"The appellant has applied for the post of PGT which have been notified for selection by the respondents by issuing advertisement on 07.06.2012. Selection to these posts is governed by the Haryana State Education School Cadre (Group B) Service Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") which were notified on 11.04.2012. These Rules stipulate that the basic qualification prescribed for the post in question is Matric with Hindi/Sanskrit or 10+2/B.A./M.A. with Hindi as one of the subjects. The passing of STET is also prescribed as an essential qualification. However, the Rules, which were amended subsequently as well, give one time relaxation to those who have experience of 4 years as Guest Faculty Teacher in the State of Haryana or in Government School or Schools recognized by the Government. This 4 years'' experience requires as PGT.

The petitioner does not qualify the STET and does not have the experience of 4 years as PGT instead she qualified the NET. She, thus, submits that her qualification of passing the NET be included to fulfill the aforesaid eligibility condition of STET as well.

We are afraid that such a contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. There is a definite purpose for prescribing STET and 4 years'' experience of teaching the students in PGT which, for the posts now advertised, are the only material consideration. Even when the petitioner has passed the NET, i.e. a requisite qualification for the college going students, such qualification cannot be made use of while fulfilling the requirements contained in the Rules.

We, therefore, do not find any merit in the present appeal which is accordingly dismissed.

(A.K. Sikri) Chief Justice

4.12.2012

(Rakesh Kumar Jain) judge"

The issue as regards eligibility of the petitioner to the post of PGT on the basis of her qualifying the NET examination stands answered against the petitioner in the Division Bench judgment rendered in Nirmalendu''s case (supra). Consequently, the present writ petition is found to be without merit and is dismissed.