Dismissed

Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC28 Jan 2013CWP/1659/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought exemption from H.T.E.T/S.T.E.T for four years of experience as P.G.T. The petition was dismissed as the petitioner failed to demonstrate that his experience was specifically as P.G.T. Post-Graduation, contrary to the strict requirement established in Anamika Gupta.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; candidature rejection upheld for lack of specific proof of P.G.T. experience.

Ashok Kumar Vs State of Haryana & Ors. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP No.1659 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision: 28.01.2013.

Ashok Kumar

--Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana & others

¶7

--Respondents

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.

¶9

Present:Mr. Raje Ram Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

¶11

TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.J

¶12

The petitioner had applied for the post of P.G.T. (Mathematics) in response to an advertisement dated 07.06.2012 issued by the Haryana School Teachers Selection Board. In the advertisement itself apart from laying down the essential qualifications, a one time exemption had been granted from passing the H.T.E.T/S.T.E.T to all such candidates, who have an experience of four years as P.G.T.

¶13

The present writ petition has been filed impugning the action of the respondent-Board whereby the candidature of the petitioner apart from other reasons has been also rejected on the ground that he does not possess the four years experience as P.G.T after Post Graduation.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner would refer to Annexure P-1 to contend that the petitioner had qualified the Masters Examination in the subject of Mathematics from the Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak in the examination conducted in May, 2005. Counsel would, then, refer to an experience certificate at Annexure P-2 to contend that the petitioner had been working as Lecturer in Mathematics on contractual basis w.e.f. 02.05.2007 till the date of issuance of the advertisement on the guest

¶15

CWP No.1659 of 2013 (O&M)

¶16

-2-

¶17

faculty.

¶18

On a pointed query having been put to the counsel that such experience certificate does not conclusively prove that the experience of the petitioner is as P.G.T., no response was forthcoming. The issue as regards the candidates applying for the post of P.G.T in various subjects and claiming exemption from the H.T.E.T/S.T.E.T Examination on account of possessing four years experience came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in case of Anamika Gupta Vs. State of Haryana & others (CWP No.18569 of 2012) decided on 11.12.2012 and it was held that such requisite four years experience is required as P.G.T and not as T.G.T.

¶19

In the absence of any specific pleadings to demonstrate that the four years experience possessed by the petitioner is as P.G.T, no infirmity can be found in the action of the respondent-Board in having rejected the candidature of the petitioner for the post of P.G.T (Mathematics).

¶20

No merit, petition dismissed.

¶21

(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE

¶22

28.01.2013 lucky

Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shikha Sharma Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Dayal Kaur and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Vinod Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Amarjit Singh & Ors. Vs State of Hry. & Anr.

Ravi Dutt & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Rajbir Singh & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.