Petitioner challenged rejection for PGT (Sanskrit) post claiming 4 years experience exemption. Court applied prior precedent requiring experience specifically as PGT, not TGT, thus dismissal.
Writ petition dismissed with 'No merit' against rejection of candidature.
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.
CWP No.3027 of 2013
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 3027 of 2013 Date of decision: 13.02.2013
Chaman Lal
.... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana .... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
.... Respondent
Present: Mr. Krishan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J. (ORAL).
The writ petition has been filed impugning the action of the respondent-Haryana School Teachers Selection Board whereby the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Post Graduate Teacher (Sanskrit) has been rejected.
Brief facts are that the petitioner had applied for the post of Post Graduate Teacher (Sanskrit) in response to an advertisement dated 07.06.2012. The essential qualifications for the post had been laid down in the advertisement itself. Still further it had been stipulated that a one time exemption from qualifying the HTET/STET examination was available to all such candidates who possess a 4 years' teaching experience as PGT on 11.04.2012. It has been pleaded that the petitioner possessed the essential qualifications i.e. M.A in Sanskrit
CWP No.3027 of 2013 -2-
as also B.Ed. from recognized university and as such had applied for the post of PGT (Sanskrit) within the stipulated time-frame. It has further been pleaded that the petitioner also possessed a teaching experience in excess of 4 years as on 11.04.2012 as per the requirement contained in the advertisement. The present writ petition has been necessitated as on 23.01.2013 when the petitioner presented himself for the interview, the concerned interview committee declined to take the interview on the ground that the experience certificate relied upon by the petitioner was that of Sanskrit Teacher whereas the petitioner, should possess the experience as Sanskrit Lecturer.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would advert to a corrigendum dated 03.07.2012 issued by the respondent-Board to contend that the requirement of experience to claim exemption from the HTET/STET examination was in terms of having worked as a teacher for a minimum period of 4 years till 11.04.2012. Counsel would even refer to the experience certificates at Annexures P-5 to P-7 to contend that the petitioner possesses an experience of Sanskrit Teacher in excess of 4 years and as such the respondent-Board is refusing to entertain the candidature of the petitioner for the post of PGT (Sanskrit) without any justifiable reason.
Counsel for the petitioner has been heard at length.
The precise question as to whether the experience of 4 years for appointment to the post of a Post Graduate Teacher is to be as
CWP No.3027 of 2013
-3-
TGT or PGT came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.18569 of 2012 titled as Anamika Gupta Vs. State of Haryana and others. In the judgment dated 11.12.2012, the Division Bench clearly held that 4 years' experience which would be relevant for teaching students in PGT i.e. the post advertised, would be only as a PGT and as such experience gained as a TGT Teacher cannot be taken into reckoning. A perusal of the certificates at Annexures P-5 to P-7 do not demonstrate that the petitioner while working in the institutes concerned has gained experience as a PGT Teacher.
Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity in the action of the respondent-Board in not treating the petitioner as eligible for the post of PGT (Sanskrit).
No merit.
Dismissed.
(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE
February 13, 2013 Diwaker Gulati
1 issue framed by the court
Whether experience as a Sanskrit Teacher qualifies for exemption as a PGT experience for the advertised post?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Anamika Gupta Vs. State of Haryana and othersApplied¶18
Civil Writ Petition No.18569 of 2012 titled as Anamika Gupta Vs. State of Haryana and others
Chaman Lal
State of Haryana
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
