Dismissed¶29

Sushil Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Jul 2025LPA/1130/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HTET essential qualification; NCTE regulations; Right to Education Act; Haryana recruitment re-advertisement No.3/15 dated 28.06.2015; earlier 2014 advertisement withdrawn; eligibility of earlier applicants limited to participation, not waiver of qualifications; no exemption from NCTE-prescribed qualifications; upholds Single Judge order dated 28.11.2024; LPA dismissed; High Court of Punjab and Haryana; decision dated 08.07.2025; pending applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

Under the NCTE regulations, passing of HTET is an essential requirement for appointment; therefore, in the new advertisement, the same was laid down as an essential qualification. ¶23

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant, who had applied under the earlier (withdrawn) 2014 advertisement under which HTET was not an essential qualification, was required to possess the HTET qualification to be treated as eligible for participation and selection on the post under re-advertisement No.3/15.

¶22

Court's answer

Under the NCTE regulations, passing of HTET is an essential requirement for appointment; therefore, in the new advertisement, the same was laid down as an essential qualification.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

While treating candidates who had applied under the earlier advertisement as eligible to participate on the re-advertised post, they were required to possess the minimum required qualifications under the advertisement.

¶23

Key takeaways

The word used in Note 1 — 'the candidates to be eligible against the re-advertised post' — is only to the extent of participation and not to the extent of their possessing the requisite qualifications under the advertisement.ratio¶23
Any person not possessing the requisite qualifications laid down by the NCTE regulations cannot claim exemption on the basis that the qualification did not exist under the earlier advertisement.ratio¶28
The conditions laid down in the new advertisement are in consonance with the provisions of the Right to Education Act and the NCTE regulations, which are to be taken into consideration for the purpose of appointment.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench (Sanjeev Prakash Sharma & Meenakshi I. Mehta, JJ.) of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismisses LPA-1130-2025 filed by Sushil Kumar against the State of Haryana, challenging the learned Single Judge's order dated 28.11.2024 by which the appellant/writ petitioner was found non-suited for participation and selection on the advertised post. The appellant had applied under the department's earlier 2014 advertisement (since withdrawn), which did not require HTET; under re-advertisement No.3/15 dated 28.06.2015, earlier applicants were to be eligible against the re-advertised posts. Held: passing of HTET is an essential requirement for appointment under the NCTE regulations and was laid down as an essential qualification in the new advertisement, whose conditions are in consonance with the Right to Education Act and the NCTE regulations; the eligibility of earlier applicants extended only to participation and not to possession of the requisite qualifications; no person lacking NCTE-prescribed qualifications can claim exemption on the ground that the qualification did not exist under the earlier advertisement. The appellant admittedly does not possess the HTET certificate and therefore cannot be treated as eligible; the Single Judge's order warrants no interference. Appeal dismissed; all pending applications disposed of accordingly (decision dated 08.07.2025).

¶1

LPA-1130-2025 (O&M)

¶2

Page 1 of 3

¶3

105

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

LPA-1130-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.07.2025

¶6

SUSHIL KU M AR

¶7

. . . . Appellan t Vs.

¶8

STATE OF H ARYANA AND OTHERS

¶9

. . . . Respondent s

¶10

****

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA

¶12

¶13

Present: M r. R.S. Sangwan, Advocate f or the appellant.

¶14

¶15

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)

¶16

By wa y of present appeal, learned c ounsel assails the order date d 28.11. 2 024 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby th e appell a nt/writ petitioner was found to b e non-suited for the purpose o f partici p ation and selection on the post a dvertised.

¶17

Learne d counsel submits that so far a s the appellant is concerned, h e had ap p lied under the earlier advertise m ent issued by the department i n 2014, which was withdrawn. Ther e after, the respondents issue d anothe r advertisement No.3/15 on 28. 0 6.2015, and it was stipulated i n the ad v ertisement that those candidate s who had earlier applied woul d also be eligible against the re-advertis e d posts, as such candidates wil l be exe m pt from payment of applicati o n fees. Thus, for all intents an d

¶18

MOHIT GOYAL 2025.07.09 15:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

LPA-1130-2025 (O&M)

¶20

Page 2 of 3

¶21

purpos e s, the appellant who was e l igible in terms of the earlie r adverti s ement and had applied, woul d be treated as eligible for th e purpos e of participation and selection u nder the new advertisement.

¶22

He sub m its that the learned Single Jud g e has erred in holding that eve n those w ho had applied under the earlie r advertisement should clear th e HTET, as it was not an essential qualification for eligibility under th e earlier a dvertisement.

¶23

We ha v e carefully gone through the s u bmissions raised as above an d with reference to the advertisement, a n d also perused the order passe d by the learned Single Judge. It remai n s undisputed that the appellan t had a p plied under the earlier advert i sement wherein there was n o require m ent of passing the HTET e xam. In terms of the NCT E regulat i ons, passing of HTET is essent i al requirement for appointment , and th e refore, in the new advertiseme n t, the same was laid down as a n essenti a l qualification. While treating the candidates who had earlie r applie d to be eligible to participate on t he re-advertised post, they wer e required to possess the minimum re q uired qualifications under th e adverti s ement. The word used in Note 1 ‘the candidates to be eligibl e agains t the re-advertised post’ is only t o the extent of participation an d not to t he extent of their possessing t h e requisite qualifications unde r the ad v ertisement.

¶24

We als o notice that not only in the es s ential qualifications, in Note 4 and N o te 9 of the new advertisem e nt, it was highlighted that a certificate of HTET conducted by t h e Board of School Educatio n

¶25

MOHIT GOYAL 2025.07.09 15:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

LPA-1130-2025 (O&M)

¶27

Page 3 of 3

¶28

Harya n a, Bhiwani would be required as essential for the purpose o f treatin g a person qualified for appoint m ent. The conditions laid dow n in the n ew advertisement are in conso n ance with the provisions of th e Right t o Education Act and the NC T E regulations, which are to b e taken i n to consideration for the purp o se of appointment. Any perso n not po s sessing the requisite qualifications as laid down by the NCT E regulat i ons cannot claim exemption o n the basis of qualification no t being e xisted under the earlier advertis e ment.

¶29

We, th e refore, agree that the qualificat i on of passing the HTET was a n essenti a l qualification for the post that the appellant had applied. Sinc e the ap p ellant admittedly does not possess the HTET certificate, h e cannot be treated to be eligible. The or d er passed by the learned Singl e Judge d oes not warrant any interfere n ce. The Appeal is accordingl y dismissed .