Naveen Kumar and Others Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Naveen Kumar and Others Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of with a direction to the respondents to accord consideration to the petitioners' claim for promotion, keeping in view the promotion of juniors to the petitioners, in accordance with the NCTE Regulation of 2011, with required action to be taken within three months; pending miscellaneous applications also disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners' claim for promotion to the post of TGT (English) can be denied by relying upon the qualification prescribed in the unamended Haryana School Education (Group C) State Cadre Service Rules, 2012, when that prescription is inconsistent with the NCTE regulations dated 29.07.2011.

Court's answer

Once the NCTE regulations are held to be determinative of the qualification prescribed for the post, the petitioners' claim for promotion cannot be non-suited by relying upon the unamended service rules which were inconsistent with the NCTE guidelines of 2011.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners' claim for promotion has to be dealt with as per the qualification prescribed in the NCTE regulations, once those regulations have become applicable.

Key takeaways

The petitioners' claim for promotion would not be discarded merely because the Rules of 2012, as they then stood, contained a different prescription of qualification.ratio¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law / teacher recruitment qualifications — Petitioners (TGT English cadre) challenged the prescription of qualification for TGT (English) at Appendix-B, Sr. No.5 of the Haryana School Education (Group C) State Cadre Service Rules, 2012, as being at variance with the NCTE regulations dated 29.07.2011. It was undisputed that the Rules, 2012 had since been amended by the Amendment Rules, 2021 bringing the prescription into consonance with the NCTE regulations, so substantial relief stood already granted. The Court clarified that once the NCTE regulations are determinative of the qualifying prescription, a promotion claim cannot be non-suited by relying on the unamended, inconsistent service rules; the claim must be dealt with per the NCTE regulations once applicable. Petition disposed of with a direction to consider the petitioners' promotion, keeping in view promotions of juniors, per the NCTE Regulation of 2011, within three months.

214 I N THE HIGH COURT OF PU N JAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIG A RH

CWP- 2 4276-2019 (O&M) Date o f Decision: 27.08.2025

Naveen Kum a r and others …Petitioners

V.

State of Hary a na and others …Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR

Present: M s. Shruti Jain Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners.

M r. Varun Gupta, DAG, Haryan a . ***

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (Oral)

P etitioners have challenged t h e Haryana School Educatio n (Group C) S t ate Cadre Service Rules, 201 2 (for short ‘the Rules, 2012’) , wherein, Ap p endix-B at Sr. No.5 prescri b es the qualification for TG T (English) at v ariance with the regulations f ramed issued by the Nationa l Council for Teachers Education (NCTE) date d 29.07.2011. 2. I t is contended that the prescrip t ion of qualification has to be a s per the NCT E regulations and the rules of the State cannot be relied upon t o deny conside r ation to the petitioners’ claim for promotion only because th e service rules a re inconsistent with the NCTE g uidelines. 3. I t is undisputed that the Rul e s, 2012, are amended by th e Amendment R ules, 2021 and the prescriptio n of qualification has now bee n

RAJESH KUMAR 2025.09.02 09:18 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-24276-2019 (O&M)

[2]

made in consonance with NCTE regulations. In such circumstances, substantial relief claimed by the petitioners has already been granted.

We further clarified that once the NCTE regulations are held to be determinative of qualification prescribed for the post, the claim of the petitioners for promotion cannot be non-suited by relying upon the unamended service rules which were inconsistent with the NCTE guidelines of 2011. Petitioners’ claim for promotion has to be dealt with as per the qualification prescribed in the NCTE regulations, once it has become applicable.

The petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction upon the respondents to accord consideration to the petitioner’s claim for promotion, keeping in view the promotion of juniors to the petitioners, in accordance with the NCTE Regulation of 2011 and such claim would not be discarded only because by then Rules of 2012 contained a different prescription of qualification. Required action in this regard would be taken within three months.

All pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

(ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA) JUDGE

	(ROHIT JU	KAPOOR) DGE
27.08.2025
rajesh
	1. Whether speaking/reasoned? :	Yes/No
	2. Whether reportable? :	Yes/No

RAJESH KUMAR 2025.09.02 09:18 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.