Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2016 Supreme(P&H) 289

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DEEPAK SIBAL, J.
Jagbir Singh - Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and another - Respondents
CWP Nos. 11736 of 2013, 1240, 8974, 5002, 5042, 1416, 22372, 22441, 22443, 3940, 10623, 9948, 9902, 11175, 15659, 18597, 18880, 18893, 18963, 19742, 20470, 13530, 13575, 15784, 16877, 17350, 17594, 18086, 18089, 18094, 18133, 18308, 18440, 18523, 18527, 18531, 18532, 18533, 18535, 7281, 1433, 16016, 19312, 21356, 21680, 15505, 20964, 22814, 23032, 23396, 25998, 9555 of 2014, 582, 898, 3274, 3661, 3868, 1851, 732, 9833, 8790, 8767, 8768, 8847 and 1616 of 2015.
Decided on : 15.02.2016

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioners in 11736 of 2013, 5002, 5042, 22441, 22443, 3940, 9902, 10623, 9948, 19742, 13530, 13575, 16877, 17350,17594, 18086, 18094, 18523, 18527, 18532, 15505, 20964, 9555 of 2014, 582, 898,1616, 3661, 3868, 8767 and 8790 of 2015.
Mr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No.20470 of 2014.
Mr. Ravi Verma, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP Nos.18531 and 18535 of 2014.
Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP No.11175 of 2014.
Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP No.8847 of 2015.
Mr. Ram Niwas Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP No.23396 of 2014.
Mr. G. S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP No.1416 of 2014.
Mr. Naveen Daryal, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No.25998 of 2014.
Mr. Parveen Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP No. 732 of 2015.
Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP No. 22814 of 2014.
Mr. V.D. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP No. 21680 of 2014.
Mr. Manoj Tanwar, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP No. 19312 of 2014
Mr. Kulbhushan Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP Nos.1240 and 1433 of 2014.
Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP No.21356 of 2014.
Mr. M.S. Rana, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP Nos.16016, 22372, 8974 of 2014.
Ms. Sunita Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP No.18597 of 2014.
Mr. S.S. Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No.8768 of 2015.
Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP No.18308 of 2014
Mr. Surender Deswal, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No.1851 of 2015.
Mr. R.K. Bagga, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No. 18440 of 2014.
Mr. S.S. Malik, Advocate for the petitioner In CWP No.18089 of 2014.
Mr. Surender Lamba, Advocate for the petitioner In CWP No.18880 of 2014.
Mr. Raghav Goel, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP No.18533 of 2014.
Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No.7281 of 2014.
Mr. H. P. S. Bhinder, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP No.15784 of 2014.
Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No.3274 of 2015.
Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No.15659 of 2014.
Mr. K. S. Kang, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No.9833 of 2015.
Mr. P.S. Salar, Advocate and Mr. S.S. Salar, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No.18133 of 2014.
Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP Nos.18963, 23032 & 18893 of 2014
Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. S.K. Redhu, Advocate for respondents No.3, 10, 11, 16, 25, 27, 30, 37, 38, 43, 53, 68, 70, 75, 80, 86, 90, 93, 96, 100 to 102 105, 125, 127, 142, 151, 153, 157 , 160, 169 and 173. in CWP No.16016 of 2014.
Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for respondents No.29, 57, 66 & 90 in CWP No.15505 of 2014
Mr.Rajesh Hooda, Advocate for respondents No.8, 44, 53 & 61 in CWP No.15505 of 2014.
Mr. Harish Nain, Advocate for respondents No.12, 23, 25, 31, 42, 43, 46, 49, 55, 56, 62, 79 and 89. in CWP No. 15505 of 2014
Ms. Gunjan Mehta, Advocate for respondent No.47 in CWP No.8768 of 2015.
Mr. Ashok Kaushik, Advocate for the respondents in CWP No.8768 of 2015.
Mr. S.S. Kharb, Advocate for respondent No.17 in CWP No.15505 of 2014.
Mr. Amardeep Hooda, Advocate for respondent No.88 in CWP No.15505 of 2014.
Mr. Sant Lal Barwala, Advocate for respondents No.86 and 92 in CWP No.3940 of 2014.
Mr. S.S. Mor, Advocate for respondents No.24 and 16 in CWP No.21680 of 2014, for respondents No.3, 11, 83 & 93, 45, 48, 50, 72 in CWP No.15505 of 2014.
Mr. Jitender K. Sehrawat, Advocate, for the respondents in CWP-18597-2014.
Ms. Divya Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.70 and 84 in CWP Nos.15505 of 2014.
Mr. Pardeep Singh Poonia, Advocate for respondent No.4 in CWP No.23396 of 2014.
Mr. S.S. Shekhawat, Advocate for respondent No.81 in CWP No.15505 of 2014
Mr. Rahul Garg, Advocate, for respondent No.60 in CWP No.15505 of 2014.
Mr. Tushar Guatam, Advocate for Mr. Harender Singh, Advocate, for respondents No.7, 10, 11, 13, 20, 21, 23, 25 & 39
Mr. Manish Mehta, Advocate, for respondent No.18 in CWP No. 22814 of 2014.
Mr. V.S. Punia, Advocate, for respondents No.42, 163, 172 in CWP No.16016 of 2014.
Mr. Mukesh Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.250 in CWP No. 9833 of 2015
Mr. Namit Khurana, Advocate for the respondents in CWP No.9833 of 2015.
Mr. N.R.Dahia, Advocate for respondent No.103 in CWP No.9833 of 2015.
Ms. Renu Arya, Advocate for Mr. D.P.S. Bajwa, Advocate for respondent No.302 in CWP No.9833 of 2015.
Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Advocate, for respondent No.61 in CWP No. 16016 of 2014.
Mr. Jagjeet Beniwal, Advocate for respondent No.69 in CWP No.15505 of 2014 of 2014.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Selection Board has the right to frame selection criteria within the legal framework, and the court will not interfere unless the criteria are illegal, suffer from procedural impropriety, or are irrational.

Headnote:
Selection of Post Graduate Teachers (PGTs) - Advertisement, Eligibility Criteria, and Selection Process - Exemption from Passing HTET/STET and B.Ed Examination - Challenge to Selection Process - Estoppel - Allocation of Marks for Interview - Alleged Arbitrariness - Legal Principles for Selection Criteria
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the selection of Post Graduate Teachers (PGTs) based on the advertisement dated 07.06.2012, alleging that the selection criteria were not disclosed in the advertisement and were only revealed at the time of result declaration. The petitioner further contended that the allocation of marks for the interview was excessive and arbitrary. Additionally, the petitioner raised concerns about the exemption granted from passing HTET/STET and B.Ed examinations, alleging dilution of standards and favoritism towards exempted candidates.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner was estopped from challenging the selection process as they had participated in the process without raising any objections. The court also held that the Selection Board had the right to frame selection criteria within the legal framework. The court rejected the petitioner's argument regarding the alleged arbitrariness in the allocation of interview marks, citing the absence of mala fides and the lack of impleading the Interviewing Board as parties. The court also noted that the exemption from passing HTET/STET and B.Ed examinations was granted based on amendments to the 2012 Rules, which had been upheld by a Division Bench of the court.
Issues: The issues involved in the case included the disclosure of selection criteria in the advertisement, the allocation of marks for the interview, the exemption from passing HTET/STET and B.Ed examinations, and the petitioner's challenge to the entire selection process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was estopped from challenging the selection process and that the Selection Board had the right to frame selection criteria within the legal framework. The court also found that the allocation of interview marks was not arbitrary and that the exemption from passing HTET/STET and B.Ed examinations was granted based on upheld amendments to the 2012 Rules.
Final Decision: The court dismissed all the petitions challenging the selection of Post Graduate Teachers (PGTs) with no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK SIBAL, J. :

Through the present bunch of petitions being CWP Nos. 11736 of 2013, 1240, 8974, 5002, 5042, 1416, 22372, 22441, 22443, 3940, 10623, 9948, 9902, 11175, 15659, 18597, 18880, 18893, 18963, 19742, 20470, 13530, 13575, 15784, 16877, 17350, 17594, 18086, 18089, 18094, 18133, 18308, 18440, 18523, 18527, 18531, 18532, 18533, 18535, 7281, 1433, 16016, 19312, 21356, 21680, 15505, 20964, 22814, 23032, 23396, 25998, 9555 of 2014, 582, 898, 3274, 3661, 3868, 1851, 732, 9833, 8790, 8767, 8768, 8847 and 1616 of 2015, selection of Post Graduate Teachers (PGTs), made in pursuant to advertisement no. 1/2012 dated 07.06.2012 is challenged.

For the sake of convenience, facts have been extracted from C. W. P. No. 11736 of 2013.

Through advertisement dated 07.06.2012, the respondents invited applications for appointment to the posts of Post Graduate Teachers (PGTs) in different subjects. As per the advertisement, the last date of application was 29.06.2012, which, through a corrigendum, was extended to 15.07.2012. The following eligibility was prescribed, which was common to all posts :-

“Common to all posts – Eligibility :

(a) Matric with Hindi/Sanskrit or 10+2/ B.A./M.A. with Hindi as one of the subject.

(b) Certificate of having qualified Haryana Teacher Eligibility Test (HTET)/School Teachers Eligibility Test (STET) of respective subject for the post applied, conducted by Board of School Education Haryana, Bhiwani/One time exemption of HTET [See Note-2].

(d) Essential qualification (EQ) is given with each post.”

Further qualifications, which were prescribed, were Post Graduation in the concerned subject with at least 50% marks and B.Ed. from a recognized University. Along with the essential qualifications, the advertisement also contained the following Notes :-

“Note 1. Consistent good academic record implying that out of the lower qualification i.e. Matric/l0+2 Graduation than requisite minimum qualification, one must secure at least 50% marks in two lower exams and 45% marks in third lower exam. If there are only two lower exams, than one must secure at least 50% marks in one exam and 45% marks in another.

Note 2. A one time exemption of HTET/STET has been granted to the candidates who have worked for minimum 4 years till 11.04.2012 in privately managed Govt. Aided Schools Recognized Schools and Govt. Schools. Candidate must be in service on 11.04.2012 in addition to being in position on the date of applying for the said post. They will have to qualify HTET not later than 1st April 2015 otherwise their services will be terminated automatically. Qualification/eligibility conditions and certificates will be determined with regard to last date fixed for submission of online applications also called as closing date given in the advertisement.

Note 3. One time exemption certificate for HTET/STET & one time upper age relaxation certificate from Head of the Institute is required to be verified by DEO & counter signed by Director of Secondary Education of the concerned State. One time implies that an applicant can apply only once for a particular category of post in the first advertisement. No such exemption will be granted in the subsequent advertisement.

Note 4. A person who has passed HTET/STET without the qualification of B.Ed. before the date i.e. 11.04.2012 of notification of Service Rules concerned, shall be considered eligible for the post of PGT.

Note 5. Candidates having qualified Certificate of HTET/STET conducted by Board of School Education Haryana, Bhiwani only will be eligible.

Note 6. A member of Service appointed by the direct recruitment shall be liable to serve for a continuous period of five years in the rural area from the date of appointment.

Note 7. 33% posts are reserved for women of Haryana (horizontal reservation).

Note 8. Reservation in SC, BC, ESM

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

2016 Supreme(P&H) 289

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Selection Board has the right to frame selection criteria within the legal framework, and the court will not interfere unless the criteria are illegal, suffer from procedural impropriety, or are irrational.

Cases Referred (19)

Judicial Analysis