High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/16482/2016dismissed

Sugandha v. State Of Haryana And ORS

2023-03-22Mr. Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP-16482-2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.03.2023 SUGANDHA ... Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

Present:

Mr. Jasbir Mor, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Tanushree Gupta, DAG Haryana.

**** HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.(Oral) Through this petition, the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to make correction in the result of petitioner for the post of Primary Teacher (PRT). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against advertisement No.2/2012, the petitioner had applied for the post in question; that the cut off date to submit the online application form along with all the requisite documents was 08.12.2012, which was extended till 29.11.2013; that, in the year 2011, the petitioner appeared for Haryana Teachers Eligibility Test (HTET) and had secured 93 marks out of 150 marks and that, again in the year 2013, the petitioner appeared for Haryana Teachers Eligibility Test (HTET) and had secured 103 marks out of 150 marks. He further submits that though the husband of the petitioner submitted the second HTET certificate dated 26.06.2013 AMAN JAIN 2023.03.28 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-16482-2016 (O&M) -2- (Annexure P-3) with the respondent-Department, yet the same was not considered.

On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the Haryana School Teacher Selection Board (HSTSB), was wounded up vide notification dated 31.12.2014 and the Haryana School Teacher Selection Board Act, 2011 was repealed. She, however, denies receipt of the certificate dated 26.06.2013 (Annexure P-3) submitted by the husband of the petitioner. She further submits that due to lessor marks, the petitioner was not selected for the post in question.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. It is a specific claim of the petitioner that her husband had submitted the certificate 26.06.2013 (Annexure P-3) with the respondentDepartment, in time. However, the said fact has completely been denied by the learned State counsel. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, the cut out date was 08.12.2012, which was extended till 29.11.2013. Since there are disputed question of facts, which cannot be decided in the present petition, no order can be passed by this Court, at this stage.

Dismissed.

22.03.2023 (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) Aman Jain JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No AMAN JAIN 2023.03.28 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document