IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J.
Parveen Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others - Respondents
CWPOA No.3296 of 2020
Decided on : 20-12-2023
Eligibility Criteria - Language Teacher Appointment - Recruitment & Promotion Rules - [Notification dated 31.12.2009, NCTE Regulations, Teacher Eligibility Test] - The court discussed the eligibility criteria for the appointment of a Language Teacher as per the Recruitment & Promotion Rules issued in 2009, including the required educational qualifications and marks percentage. The court emphasized that the petitioner did not meet the minimum qualification criteria and upheld the decision to cancel the appointment based on the rules.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for the position of Language Teacher on a contract basis but was later found to have marks below the required percentage in graduation, leading to the cancellation of the appointment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner did not meet the minimum qualification criteria as per the Recruitment & Promotion Rules and upheld the decision to cancel the appointment.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner met the eligibility criteria for the Language Teacher appointment as per the Recruitment & Promotion Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's marks in graduation did not meet the minimum percentage required by the Recruitment & Promotion Rules, justifying the cancellation of the appointment.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as it was found to be devoid of merit, and the decision to cancel the appointment was upheld.
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
CMPT No.946 of 2023
For the reasons stated therein, present application seeking early hearing of the petition is allowed and disposed of.
CWPOA No.3296 of 2020
2. By way of this petition the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:
3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that the petitioner participated in the process that was undertaken by the respondent-department in the year 2017 for appointment as Language Teacher on contract basis. In terms of Annexure P5, dated 01.09.2017, the petitioner was reflected as a selected candidate. However, thereafter, a notice was issued to the petitioner dated 27.11.2017 (Annexure A7), which reads as under:
4. The petitioner filed O.A. No.6256 of 2017, titled as Parveen Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others feeling aggrieved by issuance of the said notice. This Original Application was disposed of by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 06.12.2017 in the following terms:
5. In the meanwhile, status quo qua existing as on 05.12.2017 (the date of institution of the original application) qua the applicant may be maintained till decision of the representation.
6. In case representation is not submitted within the time stipulated as above, the interim protection granted in favour of the applicant shall automatically cease to operate.”
5. In compliance to the order passed by the learned Tribunal, Deputy Director of Elementary Education, Hamirpur, Distt. Hamirpur, H.P. vide order dated 20.12.2017 (Annexure A11) cancelled the appointment of the petitioner from the post of Language Teacher from GSSS Choru, District Hamirpur, H.P. by holding that the petitioner was not eligible as his marks percentage in B.A. was 42% which was less than the required 45% as per the Recruitment & Promotion Rules.
6. Having heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner as also learned Additional Advocate General and having carefully perused the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith, this Court does not finds any infirmity in the impugned order.
7. The educational qualifications prescribed in the Recruitment & Promotion Rules which were prevailing qua the post of the Language Teacher issued vide Notification dated 31.12.2009 when the process was initiated and the petitioner participated in the process of selection were as under:
The central legal point established in the judgment is that adherence to the minimum qualification criteria as per the Recruitment & Promotion Rules is essential for appointments, and failure to meet....
The amendment to the recruitment rules requiring batch recognition from the B.Ed issuance date does not violate constitutional rights and is justified based on the necessity of complete qualification....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner did not possess the required qualification for the post of Language teacher as per the terms and conditions of the advertisemen....
Candidates must fulfill requisite qualifications at the time of appointment; failure to do so renders the appointment void ab initio.
Service – Recruitment – Eligibility - petitioner's eligibility criteria as carried in the R&P Rules, becoming satiated by her, thereupon, she is not entitled for the relief claimed inasmuch, as qua a....
The court emphasized the importance of meeting the eligibility conditions and the recognition of qualifications by relevant authorities in determining the validity of an engagement order for a teachi....
For batch-wise teacher recruitment up to 31.03.2014, inter se seniority reckoned from basic degree (B.A.) certificate date per Note (i), not professional qualification (B.Ed.) date.
Point of Law : Similarly, for category number (c) also the Note-3 comes into operation only if a candidate possesses more than 50% marks in graduation, because otherwise a candidate falling in this c....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.