High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/23042/2018allowed

Neha Khurana v. State Of Haryana And Others

2023-10-30Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil8 pages

! " #

$%% & '

' ' ' $ '

' ()

% ''

)

!"## $% &# '

' $( )*+

,# # #

%*#

!" - #

!" -. /// '

)"% 0 +%# # # ! # % % # ' 1 ! #%#!2 #3# !#% !,##%! # #4 " # % ! "##!"! %4#

#- 1 ,# !%"(!#% !,##%!

5% # 3( " - # '

#4 "## " #6 #!# % # "% ! 4#7 ##%# 0" #%

#- ! # ##4 ""'# # ! !#''#4 %" 8.

9 " ! % # #% !!# !

:; #(0#'5%'#!# #!# " "!#

# % =

# $

% %% !=#

# "## %3# ""'# # ! ! > " -#% # "## # #4'#4#3'! " ! % #4'( "" # ,# 6## ? "% 3 B '

.> 0 "## ' !# ,#6## 5%'(, '' ! %#( ! % >C%#4 %! %#(! % "##,'

3#'#4#3'4% " #6 "% % #!# 44# 4# "## %3# #' "# . > ' "" > %3# '# # %#3' ! !# " 0! " #% %'!# #,!"! %3%"##, '' ! ""## . <#' #%#4 # ! # > !'',#4 ," 3(#%= & "

" (

( !

)*+ ,

'# $

:; /0

, "

' -

1 '

/0 "

& "

* 2

1 "

(

0 "

56/+5/+7 8

"" "

%%##'#!4 3(#%"## "" ## #," ##''( !%'," % 3!%#' ,%""##, !% % 8 .9 4# 89 # ,# 6## 8 .9 4# 8 9 #

* '#4

9%!8 90%,'""# ! '' #4' 4( % 8 ..9 % #,!% "##,,##7! # #

D %' ! "## %3# (''3% % 3("###4 %#1"4 %##% "# %# 3 '#4#3' ! " !

# , " #3 ( " #!# "% % '4%4 ! " ! % 0! "## , 3 !% # 7 ! # # # '#3' 3 4# ""#%

:.;

D %' ! " ! %#(! % >"##,'

'#4#3' " "% #!# ! %!! '! 6 "% #!# >,' , # #' 3 ""# " !

% #" # ! ! , !% # 7 ! # # > 0#%#3'# #%!! "## % '' #4' 4(0'( #% ,# # ! # # 3! # % # , "## , " % 4 %#1" 4 %# ,# #'#4#3'!"! %0! %!"## #4 5%'#!# 4 %#1"4 %#,# 3

#"% 3(" 2'3 #"% 3(" %3+ ,# ,!! "##,,"%%#4 4 %#1"4 %# " #!# "# !%3+ ,# !! % ,#' "%%#4#6 #!# %# "%0%#

%35%'#!# # 5%# 3("### "# #6 #!# %# "%

The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sandeep Dhull vs. Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh and others 2019 (4) SCT 519 (DB), has held that once the petitioner is post-graduate in Physical Education (M.P.Ed.) and such qualification can certainly be stated to presuppose the acquisition of lower qualification (D.P.Ed/B.P.Ed./) prescribed for the post of TGT (Physical Education). Reference can be made

; to paras No.11 and 12 of the aforesaid judgment which are reproduced hereinbelow:- "11. Regarding aspect of controversy as to whether Master of Physical Education (M.P.Ed.) is higher degree than Bachelor of Physical Education (B.P.Ed.)/Diploma in Physical Education (D.P.Ed.) in the same line and discipline as per the National Council of Teacher Education (NCTE), it is observed that Chairperson, Department of Physical Education, Chaudhary Ranbir Singh University, Jind, vide his certificate dated 13.04.2017 (Annexure P-6), has certified that M.P.Ed. is higher degree than D.P.Ed./B.P.Ed. in the same line and discipline as per NCTE.

Chairperson, Department of Physical Education, Chaudhary Devi Lal University, Sirsa, and Head of Department (Physical Education), Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak, vide their respective certificates dated 12.04.2017 and 15.04.2017 (Annexures P-7 and P-8) have also graded degree of M.P.Ed. as higher degree than D.P.Ed./B.P.Ed. in the same line and discipline as per NCTE. If a person has acquired higher qualification in the same faculty, such qualification can certainly be stated to pre-suppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post. Once petitioner having post-graduated in the subject of Physical Education (M.P.Ed.) has got higher qualification in the same faculty, such qualification (M.P.Ed.) can certainly be stated to pre-suppose the acquisition of lower qualifications (D.P.Ed./B.P.Ed.)

prescribed for the post of TGT (Physical Education). Petitioner having acquired higher qualification (M.P.Ed.) is eligible for the post of TGT (Physical Education), wherein lower qualifications (D.P.Ed./B.P.Ed.) have been prescribed. Petitioner who has scored 140 marks was declared successful in the written examination for the post in question and stood at serial No.14 in the merit list of general category candidates. Since there were 21 posts of TGT (Physical Education), petitioner being eligible is entitled to be appointed for the said post.

;

12. As a sequel to above said findings, it is held that since respondents did not consider the claim of petitioner in right perspective, thus, impugned recommendations dated 09.10.2015 (Annexure A-6) made by Committee constituted by respondents No.2 to 4 as well as impugned order dated 28.03.2017 (Annexure P-4) passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, rejecting the claim of petitioner are set aside.

Resultantly, instant writ petition is allowed in the manner that petitioner-Sandeep Dhull is entitled to be appointed as TGT (Physical Education) in the Education Department of Chandigarh Administration, UT Chandigarh, as name of petitioner-Sandeep Dhull falls in the selection zone in the General Category, with effect from the date his junior in merit was appointed with all consequential benefits of arrears of salary, seniority etc. The respondents are further directed to implement the aforesaid order/directions within two (2) months of the receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the arrears of salary from the date of accrual till date of realization, apart from liability to be hauled up in contempt proceedings. The Department/U.T.

Chandigarh shall be free to recover the component/element of interest, if payable, from the sanctioning/competent authority."

10.

Similarly, in the case of "Sarla Bala vs. State of Punjab and others", 2014 (3) SCT 345, this Court has held that denying consideration to a candidate having better and higher qualification in the same line and discipline would result in breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and directed the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner therein for appointment.

11.

The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2010(3) S.C.T. 703, has categorically held that although a candidate having higher qualification may not be entitled to any

; additional weightagee but his right of consideration for selection cannot be excluded if otherwise he is found in the zone of selection. The relevant observations made by the Bench are reproduced hereinbelow:- "From the facts on record and dictum of above noticed judgments, it emerges that the candidate possessing higher qualification in the same line cannot be excluded from consideration for selection. It is a different matter that he/she may not be entitled to any additional weightage for higher qualification, but cannot be denied consideration at par with a candidate possessing minimum prescribed qualification.

Denying consideration to a candidate having better and higher qualification in the same line and discipline would definitely result in breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India."

12.

In Multan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and another, 2004 (3) RSJ 611, the Division Bench this High Court has held that the approach of the recruitment agency in ignoring the candidates for appointment holding the qualifications of B.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. being higher qualifications, is arbitrary and violative or Articles 14 and 16 and cannot be sustained. The relevant extract of the aforesaid decision reads as under:- "23. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. The decision of the Commission not to entertain the candidature of the petitioners for the posts of P.T.I. is declared illegal and quashed. It shall declare the result of selection within next 15 days and the selected candidates be appointed strictly in the order of merit. If some eligible candidates were left out from being considered, then the Commission shall interview them and declare a composite result of the entire selection. Thereafter, the competent authority shall make appointment strictly in the order of merit."

13.

In view of the discussions made hereinabove and the judicial pronouncements, this Court is of the view that the claim of the petitioner is

:>; squarely covered by the judgments referred supra as the petitioner possessed higher qualification than the requirement of possessing six months certificate course in computer.

#4'(he instant petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to offer appointment to the petitioner for the post of Accountant (MC) under general category. The petitioner would be entitled for all notional benefits from the date other selected candidates of the list have joined. She would also be entitled for the benefit of seniority, as per the merit list supplied by the selecting agency. However, it is clarified that petitioner would not be entitled for any monetary benefits from the date she is assigned seniority and for the same she is entitled from the date of joining.

'' # ''% ""'# # ' #" ! #4'(

0"## '', #!# '

) " <"#41 E F1- <"3'E F1-