Antim Kumari v. State Of Haryana And ORS.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
1.
CWP346 of 2013 Antim Kumari &Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 2.
CWP9508 of 2013 Naveen Gulia Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 3.
CWP789 of 2013 Monika and others Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 4.
CWP478 of 2013 Mange Ram Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 5.
CWP635 of 2013 Udey Partap and others Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 6.
CWP6383 of 2013 Rajesh Kumar and another Petitioners
2
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 7.
CWP15819 of 2013 Sunil and another Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 8.
CWP13451 of 2013 Sukriti Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 9.
CWP1338 of 2013 Asha Rani and another Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 10.
CWP646 of 2013 Pawan Kumar and others Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 11.
CWP18755 of 2013 Narender Kumar Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana Respondent 12.
CWP19259 of 2013 Vinod Kumar and others Petitioners
3
Versus
State of Haryana and another Respondents 13.
CWP19915 of 2013 Bhupinder Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another Respondents 14.
CWP20133 of 2013 Anju Bala Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another Respondents 15.
CWP19919 of 2013 Chetan Sharma and others Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 16.
CWP20171 of 2013 Pawan Kumar and others Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 17.
CWP20310 of 2013 Satpal and others Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 18.
CWP20203 of 2013 Naresh Kumar
4 Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 19.
CWP20393 of 2013 Renu Kumari and others Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 20.
CWP20405 of 2013 Rajesh Kumar and others Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 21.
CWP20694 of 2013 Manish Sharma and another Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 22.
CWP20469 of 2013 Saroj Bala and others Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another Respondents 23.
CWP20958 of 2013 Rajesh Sharma Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 24.
CWP21222 of 2013
5 Geeta and another Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 25.
CWP21300 of 2013 Jogender Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 26.
CWP21384 of 2013 Amit Kumar and others Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 27.
CWP22176 of 2013 Krishan and others Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 28.
CWP23032 of 2013 Meeta Kumari and others Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 29.
CWP22999 of 2013 Pushpinder Kumar and others Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 30.
CWP23062 of 2013
6 Nidhi and others Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana Respondents 31.
CWP23091 of 2013 Sapna and others Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 32.
CWP23153 of 2013 Manish Kumar and others Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 33.
CWP23290 of 2013 Arun Kumar Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 34.
CWP23267 of 2013 Anita Kumari Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 35.
CWP23297 of 2013 Satish Kumar and others Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 36.
CWP23436 of 2013
7 Krishan Kumar and others Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 37.
CWP23385 of 2013 Subhash Chander and others Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 38.
CWP23502 of 2013 Dharambir and others Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 39.
CWP23748 of 2013 Vikram Singh and others Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 40.
CWP23719 of 2013 Karamvir and others Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 41.
CWP23738 of 2013 Anil Kumar Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 42.
CWP23891 of 2013
8 Shakti Singh and others Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 43.
CWP23887 of 2013 Satish and another Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 44.
CWP23888 of 2013 Kuldeep Kumar and others Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 45.
CWP24048 of 2013 Amit Kumar Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 46.
CWP24008 of 2013 Mahavir Singh and others Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 47.
CWP24077 of 2013 Ram Singh Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 48.
CWP24089 of 2013
9 Poonam Rani Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 49.
CWP24114 of 2013 Mandeep Singh Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 50.
CWP24163 of 2013 Tarsem Kumar Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 51.
CWP24202 of 2013 Usha Bai & ors.
Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 52.
CWP24186 of 2013(O&M) Priyanka Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 53.
CWP24296 of 2013 Neelam & anr.
Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 54.
CWP24408 of 2013
10 Rituraj & ors.
Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 55.
CWP24498 of 2013 Robin Kumar & ors.
Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 56.
CWP24434 of 2013 (O&M) Ranbir Singh & ors.
Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana Respondents 57.
CWP24474 of 2013 (O&M) Shakir & anr.
Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 58.
CWP24538 of 2013 Rajkumar & ors.
Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 59.
CWP24539 of 2013 Parveen Kumar & ors.
Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 60.
CWP24646 of 2013
11 Hawa Singh & ors.
Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 61.
CWP24606 of 2013 Geeta Devi & ors.
Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 62.
CWP24786 of 2013 Shiwani & anr.
Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 63.
CWP24834 of 2013 Anju Bala Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 64.
CWP24848 of 2013 Mahinder Singh & ors.
Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 65.
CWP24885 of 2013 Manisha Sharma & ors.
Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 66.
CWP25018 of 2013
12 Surender Kumar & ors.
Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 67.
CWP25110 of 2013 Amit & ors.
Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and anr.
Respondents 68.
CWP25084 of 2013 Meenu Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 69.
CWP25115 of 2013 Sushila Rani & ors.
Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 70.
CWP25262 of 2013(O&M) Mahabir Singh & ors.
Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 71.
CWP25433 of 2013 Anil Kumar & ors.
Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 72.
CWP25274 of 2013 (O&M)
13 Sneh Lata Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 73.
CWP25425 of 2013 Geeta Rani Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 74.
CWP25533 of 2013 Kailash & ors.
Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 75.
CWP25656 of 2013(O&M) Vikas Malik and others Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 76.
CWP25851 of 2013(O&M) Anju Sharma Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 77.
CWP26028 of 2013 Kuldeep & ors.
Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 78.
CWP1831 of 2014
14 Ravinder Singh & ors.
Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 79.
CWP26186 of 2013 Monika Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 80.
CWP26464 of 2013(O&M) Dinesh & ors.
Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 81.
CWP26485 of 2013 Partipal Singh & ors.
Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 82.
CWP26694 of 2013 Satish Kumar & ors.
Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 83.
CWP26700 of 2013 Surekha Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 84.
CWP26716 of 2013
15 Naresh Kumar Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 85.
CWP26717 of 2013 Poonam Rani & ors.
Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 86.
CWP26723 of 2013 Geeta Devi Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 87.
CWP27093 of 2013 Neerja Panwar Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 88.
CWP25892 of 2013 Seema Rani & ors.
Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 89.
CWP2814 of 2014 Karnail Singh Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 90.
CWP26806 of 2013
16 Meena Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 91.
CWP26894 of 2013 Vikash Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 92.
CWP26899 of 2013 Poonam Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 93.
CWP26906 of 2013 Sangeeta Verma Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 94.
CWP26925 of 2013 Suman Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 95.
CWP27049 of 2013 Rajesh & ors.
Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 96.
CWP25879 of 2013(O&M)
17 Mahavir Singh Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 97.
CWP180 of 2014 Shashi Bala Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 98.
CWP146 of 2014 Veer Bhan Verma Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents 99.
CWP9104 of 2014 Suman Devi Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents
100. CWP8399 of 2014(O&M) Jagmohinder Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents
101. CWP9590 of 2014 Manisha Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana Respondents
102. CWP9614 of 2014
18 Saroj Bala & anr.
Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents
103. CWP9783 of 2014(O&M) Sanjeev Kumar & anr.
Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents
104. CWP13172 of 2014(O&M) Jora Singh Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents
105. CWP16572 of 2014 Balbir Singh Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents
106. CWP24465 of 2013 Ramesh Kumar & ors.
Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana Respondent
107. CWP23747 of 2013 Rajpal & ors.
Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents
19
108. CWP3082 of 2013 Sunil Kumar & ors.
Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents
109. CWP16599 of 2014 Jai Kumar Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents
110. CWP20787 of 2014 Jyoti Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents
!" # $%&'( "!) *+,-.( ,-.,# /+"!
".--'
# $%&'( "!) *+,-.( #!.$(!
,.$0# ,.#+ Present: Ms. Anu Chatrath Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Sobti, Advocate.
Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Arora, Advocate.
Mr. R.K.Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vijay Dahiya, Advocate.
Mr. Fateh Saini, Advocate.
Ms. Divya Godara, Advocate.
Mr. Jasbir Mor, Advocate.
Mr. Saroj Malakar, Advocate.
Mr. Chander Shekhar Singhal, Advocate.
Mr. Rajesh Sheoran, Advocate.
Mr. Tribhawan Dahiya, Advocate.
Mr. Harinder Singh, Advocate.
Mr. S.K. Chaudhary, Advocate.
Mr. Wazir Singh, Advocate.
20 Mr. Arihant Goyal, Advocate.
Mr. Sanchit Punia, Advocate.
Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate.
Mr. Nonish Kumar, Advocate.
Mr. Raje Ram Kaushik, Advocate.
Mr. Vinod.S.Bhardwaj, Advocate.
Mr. Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate Mr. Gaurav Gogna, Advocate.
Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate.
Mr. Vikas Lochab, Advocate.
Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate Mr. Sajjan Singh, Advocate Mr. Ravinder Bangar, Advocate Mr. Naveen Dahiya, Advocate for Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate.
Mr. Saurabh Bhardwaj, Advocate for Dr. Sushil Gautam, Advocate.
Mr. Vijay Dahiya, Advocate.
for the petitioners.
Mr. Baldev Mahajan, Advocate General, Haryana Assisted by Sh. Lokesh Sinhal, Addl.A.G.Haryana. Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate for NCTE.
Mr. Chand Ram Olla, Advocate for respondents No. 3 and 4 (in CWPs346, 13451, 20310, 20469, 21222, 24048, 20391, 21300, 23277, 23052 of 2013) Mr. Tribhuwan Dahiya, Advocate.
for respondent No.4 (in CWPs15819, 23748, 23436, 23153, 23385 of 2013) Mr. Karambir Singh Banzana, Advocate for intervenerrespondents No. 5 and 6 (in CWP3462013) #!.$(!
,.$0# ,.#+
*) This order shall dispose of aforesaid 110 writ petitions as the
21 common question of law and facts are involved therein. However, the facts are being taken from CWP No.346 of 2013. These writ petitions have been filed praying for quashing the condition in the advertisement dated 08.11.2012 issued by the Haryana Schools Teachers Selection Board for recruitment of Primary Teachers, which prescribes a certificate of having qualified Haryana Teacher Eligibility Test (HTET)/School Teachers Elgibility Test (STET) of Haryana as an essential qualification for recruitment to the said post. Rule 7 Appendix B of the Haryana Primary School Education (Group C) District Cadre Service Rules, 2012 has also been challenged which requires certificate of having qualified Haryana Teachers Eligibility Test/ School Teachers Eligibility Test as a qualification for direct recruitment to the said posts, based on which the said qualification has been incorporated in the advertisement.
A little background would be essential to put the issue in perspective. A notification dated 17.04.2008 was issued by the State of Haryana stating that in order to improve the general standard of education in the State, it had been decided to conduct a School Teachers Eligibility Test (STET) for recruitment of all categories of
22 school teachers including JBT Teachers, C&V Teachers, Masters, Lecturers, Headmasters and Principals in Government Schools of Haryana. It was decided to conduct this test once every year. The test was to be conducted by the Board of School Education, Haryana, Bhiwani. Pass percentage for candidates belonging to the General categories was fixed as 50% and for Scheduled Caste candidate as 45%. Eligible persons would get three chances to appear and pass the test. The certificate of passing issued would remain valid for five years for consideration for recruitment as School Teachers by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission. Consequent upon this decision, the then applicable Haryana Primary Education (Group C) District Cadre Service Rules, 1994 were amended vide the Haryana Primary Education (Group C) District Cadre Service (Amendment) Rules, 2008 by substituting the existing qualification for recruitment of Primary Teacher as under:
!
"# The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short 'the RTE Act') was brought into force on 1.4.2010. As per Section 23 thereof, a person to be appointed as a teacher in an elementary school was required to possess such minimum qualification
23 as is prescribed by the academic authority to be notified by the Central Government. The National Council for Teachers Education (for short "NCTE"), was notified as such authority by the Central Government. Vide notification dated 23.08.2010 issued in accordance with Section 23(1) of the RTE Act, the National Council for Teachers Education specified that passing of a teachers eligibility test to be conducted by the appropriate Government would be one of the essential qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in classes I to VIII. This notification was followed by guidelines dated 11.02.2011. Clause 10 and 11 of the said guidelines are relevant for the present purpose and are reproduced below:
$% && &&
!
'(
)) !
*
+ ,
- #
!
'(.
)) !
/
'(.
!
*
+ ,
- 0
*
+ ,
- .
#
24 -
(!
!
!
.
#
1 '(.
.# #
!
'(# -
*
+ ,
- (!
& )
!
'(
!
'( .
#
$$#
))) '(
!
!#
3 !
4
! ))(
!
))) '( 5 (&(( !
#
6
( () )
# - )
(!
)) ()
#"
Consequent upon the issue of these guidelines, the State of Haryana issued a notification dated 15.07.2011 stating that for recruitment of two types of teachers i.e. one for classes I to V and second for classes VI to VIII in all Government Schools and Aided
25 Schools, a Haryana Teachers Eligibility Test (HTET) shall be conducted at least once every year by the Board of School Education Haryana, Bhiwani in accordance with the qualification prescribed by NCTE in its notification dated 23.08.2010 and as per the guidelines for conducting the test issued by NCTE vide its letter dated 11.02.2011. In this notification, it was provided that a person who secures 60% or more in the HTET Examination will be considered HTET pass and weightage shall be given to the HTET scores in the recruitment process. However, qualifying HTET would not confer a right on any person for recruitment/employment as it is only one of the eligibility conditions for appointment.
It was clearly specified that the candidate must fulfill the other additional qualifications or conditions prescribed from time to time as per State Recruitment Rules while applying for the said post. The notification also stated that the validity period of HTET qualifying certificate for appointment shall be five years. There shall be no restriction on the number of attempts that a person can take for acquiring HTET certificate. There was also a provision for enabling an HTET qualified person to appear again for improving his or her score.
26 if desired. The validity of already STET qualified candidates was to continue for a period of five years from the date of passing the test. Certain amendment to this notification were made vide later notification dated 03.10.2012, which however are not relevant for the present purpose.
Vide notification dated 11.04.2012, the Haryana Primary Education (Group 'C') District Cadre Service Rules, 1994 as amended from time to time were repealed and Haryana Primary School Education (Group 'C') District Cadre Service Rules, 2012 were notified. Sr. No. 2 of appendix 'B' of the Rules prescribes the qualification for direct recruitment of Primary Teacher (PRT) as under: 7# $# 8 ) - ( &) 2 !2 ( - ( &) 2 !2 ))( !
( # && && && 4(!
4, !
9%:
( + ! 8) (
(!
;, !
9%:
( + ! 8) (
(!
7
, 7( 4 2 , +%%+0 ;, !
9%:
( + ! 8) (
(!
;,
!
<9:
( + !
7
, 7( 4 2 , +%%+0 ;, !
9%:
( < ! 6
27 !
9%:
( < ! 6
(!
6 1# #0 ;,
(!
6# 1# #0 ;, !
9%:
( + ! 8) ( )
0
!
!
!
#
$%=+6#-# #-# >
5 # !
9%:
( + ! 8) ( )
0
!
!
!
#
$%=+6#-# #-# >
5 # As per Note I to appendix 'B', in case of direct recruitment, the teachers working in privately managed Government aided, recognized and Government Schools are exempted from acquiring the qualification of passing HTET, if they have worked as a teacher for a minimum period of four years on the date of enforcement of the Rules. This exemption is a one time measure and such category of teachers on their appointment are required to qualify HTET not later than 1 st of April 2015, otherwise their appointments shall stand terminated automatically. As per information provided by the Deputy Director (Co ordination) of the Office of Director, Secondary Education Haryana (i) the first STET for Elementary Teachers [JBT] was held on 15.10.2008
28 for which advertisement was issued on 25.08.2008. The result was declared on 15.10.2008; [ii] second similar test was held on 24.07.2009 and the result was declared on 17.08.2009. In that very year another test was held on 12.12.2009 for which advertisement was issued on 23.08.2009 and result declared on 27.12.2009; [iii] thereafter in response to the advertisement dated 30.07.2011, a similar test was held on 6.11.2011 and its result was declared on 02.12.2011, and [iv] the last test was held during the pendency of these writ petitions on 26.06.2013, for which advertisement was issued on 28.04.2013 and the result has been declared on 17.07.2013.
The advertisement impugned in these petitions was published on 8.11.2012 inviting applications for 8763 posts of Primary Teachers (PRT). The essential qualification/ eligibility for primary teachers except District Mewat was specified as under:
!
9%:
( + ! 8) (
(!
0 ;,
!
<9:
( +*! 8) (
(!
7
, 7( 4 2 , +%%+0 ;, !
9%:
(
29 <*! 6
(!
6# 1# #0 ;, !
9%:
( +*! 8) ( )
0 ;, 6#-#6# # 6#( +*! 8) (
(!
!
( # ? 8) (8 *+@#
!
!
!
! 4(!
#
? ! &) 4(!
; ( &()
7*A#
$%=+6#-# #-# >
5 #"
The last date for submission of online application forms was 08.12.2012. It was clearly stipulated that the candidates must ensure that they fulfill all the eligibility conditions on the last date fixed for online application forms i.e. 08.12.2012. The applications of the petitioners in these cases were rejected on the ground that they did not fulfil the condition regarding having qualified HTET /STET on the date of submission of application forms.
The grievance of the petitioners, essentially, centres around the fact that the last HTET test before the publication of the impugned
30 advertisement was held on 30.07.2011. No HTET test was conducted in the year 2012. Hence, the petitioners did not get the chance to appear and qualify the HTET test because the State failed to conduct the test in the year 2012 . The argument is that the petitioners should not be made to suffer for the failure of the State to conduct the HTET in the year 2012. The cases fall essentially in three categories as noted by this Court in its order dated October 20.03.2013, when the Court formulated the following three questions, as arising for consideration in the writ petitions:
>
B6
A%#%C#+%$$
)
!
* ( ( & )
!
&(
!
((( !2 ) ()D >
! +%$+
2
( !
) ( !
7 >
B6
) ( A%#%C#+%$$2 ## ( ))
31
!
))!
( +E#%E#+%$A ( +F#%<#+%$AD"
Vide interim order dated 27.08.2013, the petitioners who had passed the HTET Test held in the year 2013 after the cutoffdate for submission of the applications were directed to be interviewed provisionally. The Board was however directed not to declare the result of the selection. Vide order dated 23.10.2013 the order dated 27.08.2013 was modified and it was directed that the candidates who possess all other eligibility conditions on the cutoff date as mentioned in the advertisement except the certificate of HTET, but have acquired the same after the cutoff date shall be treated eligible, though provisionally. The Board was given liberty to complete the selection process and declare the result subject to final outcome of the proceedings. Based on the questions formulated in the order dated 23.10.2013, these petitions can be categorized into three sets: ,
where the petitioners are the candidates who possessed all the eligibility conditions as on the cutoff date in the advertisement i.e. 08.12.2012 except the certificate of HTET/STET, which they acquired in the test held on 26.06.2013 during the pendency of the writ petitions, the result whereof was declared on 17.07.2013.
32 , where the petitioners are the candidates who had qualified CTET before the cutoff date but have not qualified HTET test held in 2013.
, are those candidates who have acquired the JBT/ETT Diploma after the cutoff date in the advertisement i.e. 08.12.2012 but have qualified in the HTET held on 26.06.2013 the result whereof was declared on 17.07.2013.
,
) Regarding the candidates in the first set the Learned Advocate General, Haryana has placed on record a communication of the Government dated 20.04.2015. In the said communication, it has been stated that, if the Court permits, the Government is willing to consider giving appointment to those candidates, who have qualified the State Teachers Eligibility Test in 2013 after the cutoff date for submission of application i.e. 08.12.2012. It has been further stated that they will be offered appointments in case the candidates have obtained marks equivalent to or more than the cutoff marks of the category for which recommendation in respect of 9455 candidates have already been received from the erstwhile Haryana School Teachers Education Board against 9875 advertised vacancies. It is stated that the
33 Government has sufficient vacancies of Primary Teachers for consideration of the claims of the petitioners and in this way the competing claims of the petitioners and the selected candidates will be settled. However, before appointment scientific verification and verification of the antecedents of these candidates will be undertaken as ordered in CWP129382014.
We do not see any reason not to permit the Government to act in the light of its decision contained in the communication of 20.4.2015.
Accordingly, considering that the claim of the petitioners in the first set of petitions has been conceded by the State Government, which has stated that it is willing to offer appointment to them, Learned counsel for the petitioners state that these petitions have become infructuous and may be disposed of as such.
Sh. Ram Kumar Malik, Sr. Advocate, appearing for the selected candidates expressed apprehension about the fate of the selected candidates. Learned Advocate General, Haryana referring to the communication dated 20.04.2015, assured that no selected candidates will be thrown out on the ground of nonavailability of vacancies while adjusting the petitioners. Sh. Malik states that in view of
34 this assurance he can have no grievance. Accordingly, the first set of petitions is disposed of as having become infructuous in view of the communication of the Government dated 20.04.2015. , Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners states that they had cleared the Central Teachers Eligibility Test (CTET) before the cutoff date and fulfilled all other eligibility conditions for appointment. HTET test was not held in the year 2012. It is argued that this lapse of the Government should not be visited upon the petitioners. Reference has been made to the guidelines of the NCTE issued on 11.02.2011 which he would urge are mandatory. Clause 11 of these guidelines states that the appropriate Government should conduct a TET test every year. Ld.
Counsel states that no doubt as per clause 10, the TET conducted by the Central Government is to apply to schools of Central Government and TET conducted by a State Government is to apply to a school of the State Government. However, as per clause 10 of these guidelines , in case the State Government decides not to conduct TET, then candidates who have qualified in the TET conducted by the Central Government may be considered eligible.
35 of Haryana, the candidates who have qualified the Central Teachers Eligibility Test are liable to be considered eligible. Learned Advocate General, Haryana has disputed this contention. He draws attention to the affidavit filed on behalf of NCTE in CWP3462013. In the said affidavit filed through the Regional Director Northern Regional Committee, it has been stated that the issue with respect to the nature of guidelines was considered by the Committee in its meeting held on 09.04.2014 and the Committee was of the view that in the eventuality of a State Teachers Eligibility Test not being conducted for inescapable circumstances, the State/UT could consider using the result of CTET. However, it is not mandatory for the State/UT to accept it.
In the affidavit, it is specifically stated that the guidelines contained in clauses 10 and 11 of the NCTE guidelines dated 11.02.2011 are directory in nature. Education being a subject in the concurrent list, the power to frame appropriate legislation/regulation/rule vests with the appropriate legislature and the State Government is well within its rights to prescribe the qualification of eligibility that candidates applying for the post must necessarily qualify the Teachers Eligibility Test of the said State.
36 given year would not amount to taking a decision not to hold the exam and to hold the candidates who have qualified Central Teachers Eligibility Test as eligible.
Learned Advocate General, has also referred to notification dated 15.07.2011, as per which it has been decided to conduct a HTET every year. He states that there is no decision of the State Government not to conduct the State Teachers Eligibility Test and to treat candidates, who have qualified the Central Eligibility Test as eligible. He further states that the STET/HTET have been conducted for year 200809, 200910, 201112 and 201213. In this context, he has referred to the affidavit dated 22.10.2013 of Sh. Zile Singh, Deputy Director (Coordination), office of Director Secondary Education, Haryana, Panchkula filed in CWP3462013. Referring to the HTET for the year 201213, it has been stated that the said test was scheduled to be held in Feb.
March, 2013, but had to be deferred because of the annual exam of 10 th and 12 th classes and was conducted on 25/26.06.2013 and the result was declared on 17.07.2013. In the said test, 3,47,272 candidates had appeared, out of which 50,420 passed.
37 required to possess such minimum qualification as is prescribed by the academic authority to be notified by the Central Government. The National Council for Teachers Education has been notified as such authority by the Central Government. Vide notification dated 23.08.2010 issued in accordance with Section 23(1) of the RTE Act , the National Council for Teachers Education specified that passing of a teachers eligibility test to be conducted by the appropriate Government would be one of the essential qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in classes I to VIII As per Section 2 of the RTE Act, the State Government is the appropriate Government in relation to a school established within the territory of the State Government other than a school established, owned or controlled by the Central Government.
Thus, for recruitment of Primary Teachers for State Government Schools, the State Government is the appropriate Government. And as prescribed by the NCTE, which is the academic authority in terms of the mandate of the RTE Act, passing of a teachers eligibility test to be conducted by the State Government is one of the essential qualifications for eligibility for appointment as Primary Teacher. The NCTE has in its affidavit referred to above clarified that the guidelines relied upon by the Ld .
38 the petitioners are directory in nature.
Thus, there is no force in the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners that as HTET test was not conducted in the year 2012 , the petitioners should be held eligible on the basis of their having qualified the CTET. The petitions in this set are thus dismissed. , Petitioners in this set are the candidates who have acquired the JBT/ETT Diploma after the cutoff date in the advertisement i.e. 08.12.2012, but have qualified in the HTET held on 26.06.2013 the result whereof was declared on 17.07.2013.
It requires no argument to hold that the petitioners in this set have no claim as they did not possess the basic qualification before the cutoff date.
These petitions are accordingly dismissed.
1,-.,# /+"!
".--'2
1#!.$(!
,.$0# ,.#+2
*+0(
*+0(
Atul