Petitioner challenged specific educational experience requirements for a contract Headmaster post, arguing college lecturer experience should suffice. The Court held the school-specific requirement was rational due to distinct student demographics in middle schools versus colleges.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Civil Writ Petition No.11480 of 2013 {1 }
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: May 24, 2013
Varinder Kaur
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present: Mr.Baljinder Singh Sra, Advocate, for the petitioner.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.(ORAL)
Petitioner has approached this Court, praying for quashing of Para No.5 of the notice issued by the respondents, copy whereof has been appended as Annexure P-2, wherein it has been stated that the experience of 7 years as a Master/Lecturer must be from a Government Added ICSE/CBSE or Punjab School Education Board affiliated Schools in respect of SS/Science/ Commerce/Math/ Hindi/ Punjabi/English.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner possesses the experience of a Lecturer in a College and, therefore, cannot be debarred from consideration for appointment to the post of Headmaster as has been advertised by the Director, General School Education, Punjab on contract basis. He contends that the
Civil Writ Petition No.11480 of 2013 {2 }
experience specified to be from the School in para No.5 of Annexure P-2 creates an artificial distinction vis-a-vis experience of a candidate, who teaches in a School and that who teaches in a College. His contention is that there cannot be distinction on the basis of experience, if it is of the post of a Lecturer either in a School or in a College and, therefore, Para No.5 of the public notice (Annexure P-2) cannot sustain and deserves to be set-aside. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed upon a Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Veena Aggarwal Versus Managing Committee, Shri Lakshmi Narain Trust, Gujarat Senior Secondari School, 1995(7) SLR 248.
I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case.
It is apparent from the advertisement/public notice that the appointment to the post of Headmaster on contract basis is under the Rastriya Madhyamik Shikhia Abhiyan Authority. The said Scheme, which has been launched by the Central Government, is based upon and is to in furtherance of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. Under the said Act, right to education has been provided to all children upto 8th class. Therefore, the appointment to the post of a Headmaster would necessarily be to a middle school. There is a clear rational made out for restricting the experience to the schools as a Master or a Lecturer because the requirement for teaching the students, who are of the age between 4
Civil Writ Petition No.11480 of 2013 {3 }
to 14 years is totally different from those students, who are studying in the Colleges and are grown up. The requirements, the considerations, the administrative exigencies and the dealings with the students plus psych of the children are quite different and, therefore, there is a rational distinction prescribing the experience from the School and not from the College. It cannot, thus, be said that insistence on the experience in the school has no rational with the object sought to be achieved by appointing a Headmaster on contract basis. The reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Veena Aggarwal (supra) by the counsel for the petitioner is misplaced for the reason that in that case, under the statuary rules, it was provided that the experience was desirable of the school and, therefore, under those circumstances the Division Bench had proceeded to hold that experience gained at the level of the College cannot be totally obliterated or not taken into consideration.
In view of the above, finding no merit in the writ petition, the same stands dismissed.
May 24, 2013 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) ramesh JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the requirement of experience specifically from schools for a Headmaster post is rational and unsustainable.
Whether experience as a lecturer in a college can substitute for school experience under the Rastriya Madhyamik Shikhia Abhiyan Scheme.
Whether the distinction between school and college teaching experience has a rational nexus with the duties of a Headmaster.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Veena Aggarwal Versus Managing Committee, Shri Lakshmi Narain TrustDistinguished¶16
1995(7) SLR 248
Varinder Kaur
State of Punjab
Augustine George Masih
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
