JUDGMENT

G.S.Sandhawalia, J. - The present judgment shall dispose of 16 cases out of which, 4 are LPAs i.e. LPA Nos. 1928 and 1963 of 2019 and LPA Nos. 3 and 84 of 2020 and 12 are writ petitions i.e. CWP Nos. 32097, 32098, 32220, 32136 and 37588 of 2018; CWP Nos. 428, 1251, 3490 and 7649 of 2019 and CWP Nos.4784, 11584 and 21265 of 2021.

2. Facts of LPA No. 1928 of 2019 are being referred to, which is filed by the appellants (private respondents in the writ petition) challenging the judgment dated 06.11.2019 and as modified on 18.11.2019 passed in CWP No. 31702 of 2018, Rakesh Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others whereby, the learned Single Judge, while deciding 56 writ petitions, set aside the notice dated 09.12.2018 (Annexure P-10) and a direction was issued to the State to declare the result afresh by treating the writ petitioners as eligible. Resultantly, it was held that the amendment dated 23.06.2017 was to be applied retrospectively as it was explanatory and, therefore, by virtue of the same, this made the writ petitioners eligible for the 626 posts of PGT (Sanskrit) which had been advertised on 28.06.2015. Vide the application for modification filed on behalf of the applicant-respondent No.6 who was also impleaded as such, it was directed that since only 523 candidates had been found eligible for appointment as per the merit list dated 01.01.2019, the application was disposed of on 18.11.2019 with directions that the result be declared afresh by treating the petitioners eligible and the merit list be prepared accordingly and candidates be appointed as per new merit list consisting of 626 posts and, therefore, consideration was directed for filling up of the vacancies as per the advertisement in question.

Reasoning Of Learned Single Judge

3. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Zile Singh v. State of Haryana , 2005 (2), RCR (Civil) 744 to hold that the Court could deal with the provision while interpreting it to be either prospective or retrospective. Resultantly, the degree of Shiksha Shastri has been held equivalent to B.Ed. and, therefore, the writ petitioners could not be held ineligible on the sole ground that the amendment made in the year 2017 was prospective. The learned Single Judge had taken into consideration various instructions dated 02.09.1974, 12.08.1991, 09.08.1996, 30.04.1998, 15.10.2013 whereby, the issue of equivalence as such had been considered including instructions and the notification of the U.T. Administration dated 13.07.1992 apart from the UGC notification dated 05/11.07.2014. Resultantly, reference was made to various affidavits filed and the reports of the committees as such prior to the amendment of the Rules by coming to the conclusion that the benefit of amendment made in the year 2017 has to be given retrospectivity while rejecting the argument raised by the State that the benefit of amendment made in the year 2017 has to be given prospectivity and the candidates could not be treated eligible for the advertisement of 2015. Accordingly, it was held that once the State was treating these qualifications equivalent, the candidates could not be denied the benefit and could not be held to be ineligible. The argument raised by the State was rejected that it was the prerogative of the employer to provide for qualifications for appointment and also the fact that the issue had already been decided. The factum of the amendment made in the year 2017 to be taken as retrospective was also decided that the Court could do so and construe the provisions on few touchstones and resultantly came to the conclusion that the judgment in Sunita Rani's case (supra) would not be a binding precedent. However, by virtue of the said order, the learned Single Judge opined on the fact that the qualification of Shiksha Shastri was equivalent to B.Ed. but deferred hearing with another connected set of cases qua the same advertisement pertaining to the equivalency of M.A. with Acharya, whi