Dismissed

Kuljeet Kaur v. State of Pb.

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Jan 2013CWP/19012/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged rejection of their appointment claims for JBT Teacher posts based on a Pre-School Teachers Education Diploma. The Court held that the diploma is authorized only for pre-nursery classes and is not equivalent to the prescribed JBT/ETT Training, dismissing the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed with the direction that the claim for appointment is not maintainable based on the qualifications possessed.

Kuljeet Kaur Vs State of Pb. — Education and Admissions | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

CWP No. 19012 of 2001

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

CWP No. 19012 of 2001

¶5

Date of Decision : January 07, 2013

¶6

Kuljeet Kaur and another

¶7

.... PETITIONERS

¶8

Vs.

¶9

State of Punjab and others

¶10

..... RESPONDENTS

¶11

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

¶12

Present : Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶13

Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, DAG, Punjab, for the respondents.

¶14

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)

¶15

Petitioners have approached this Court claiming consideration for appointment to the post of JBT Teachers in District Amritsar and Gurdaspur respectively in pursuance to the advertisement dated 02.04.2000 and subsequent corrigendum dated 27.05.2000 (Annexure P-1), wherein educational qualifications were modified.

¶16

CWP No. 19012 of 2001

¶17

¶18

It is the contention of the petitioners that they possess the educational qualifications prescribed as per the said corrigendum which would entitle them for consideration for appointment to the post of JBT Teacher. It is contended that the petitioners possess Pre-School Teachers Education Diploma from D.A.V. Institute of Correspondence Education, New Delhi and the copies of certificates of diplomas possessed by the petitioners have been placed on record as Annexures P-2 and P-5 with the writ petitions. Further contention is that the said diploma of the petitioners is recognized by the State of Punjab and in support thereof, reliance has been placed upon a communication dated 03.09.1993 (Annexure P-9) issued by the Secretary to Government, Department of Education, Punjab. On this basis, counsel for the petitioners argued that non-consideration of the claim of the petitioners for appointment to the post of JBT Teachers is not in consonance with law and, therefore, direction be issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for appointment.

¶19

On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that the diploma possessed by the petitioners is not equivalent to the qualifications which have been prescribed in the corrigendum. Although the course of the petitioners is of two years duration but it is for Pre-School Teachers Education, which cannot be equated with those of JBT Teachers. None of the qualifications, which have been specified in the corrigendum i.e. JBT Training/ETT Training two years

¶20

CWP No. 19012 of 2001

¶21

¶22

Course, is possessed by the petitioners and, therefore, the claim of the petitioners for consideration for appointment to the post of JBT Teachers has rightly been rejected by the respondents.

¶23

On considering the submissions made by the counsel for

¶24

the parties and on going through the records of the case, the contention, as raised by the counsel for the respondents, appears to be justified. The educational qualifications, as per the corrigendum dated 27.05.2000 (Annexure P-1), read as follows:-

¶25

“2) Educational Qualifications:-

¶26

a) Matric with 10+2 from any recognized Board/University.

¶27

b) JBT Training/ETT Training 2 years course from Punjab or any other State or Union Territory recognized by the State of Punjab, the candidate must be domicile of Punjab.

¶28

c) That the candidate must have passed Punjabi of Matric Standard.

¶29

d) The Educational Qualification for the remaining candidates shall remain as already advertised. e) The candidate must be of minimum of 18 years of age and maximum of 45 years of age as on 1.1.2000. The relaxation in the age shall be admissible as per the Punjab Govt. Rules.”

¶30

Petitioners admittedly possess Pre-School Teachers Education Diploma, which is not the one which is prescribed in the

¶31

CWP No. 19012 of 2001

¶32

¶33

educational qualifications as per the corrigendum. The recognition, which has been granted to the diploma possessed by the petitioners vide communication dated 03.09.1993 (Annexure P-9), only says that it is a course which is recognized for teaching pre-nursery classes only. The appointment to the post of JBT Teachers does not pertain to pre-nursery classes and, therefore, the claim of the petitioners cannot be accepted. That apart, respondents, in their reply, have specifically stated that the diploma course possessed by the petitioners is not equivalent to JBT/ETT Course, which is the basic requirement for appointment to the JBT Teachers.

¶34

In view of the above, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed.

¶35

January 07, 2013 pj

¶36

(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE

Kuljeet Kaur v. State of Pb.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuljeet Kaur v. State of Pb.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bandhna Rani Vs State of Punjab

Prachir Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Sunny Hans and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Kundan Lal & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Baldev Raj Vs State of Punjab

Pratap and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.