JUDGMENT :

Gurvinder Singh Gill, J. (Oral)

1. The instant review application has been filed on behalf of Manjit Singh and eight other applicants who are appellants No. 2, 6, 7, 8, 13, 17, 18, 20 & 23 in LPA No.670-2024 and who were originally arrayed as private respondents in CWP No.18522 of 2023 & CWP No.19528 of 2023, seeking review of order dated 14.05.2024 passed in the aforesaid LPA.

2. The matter pertains to recruitment of 168 Physical Education Masters/Mistress through an advertisement dated 08.01.2022 wherein eligibility condition of passing Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test-II (PSET-II) was prescribed. Subsequently, during the course of recruitment process, the State Government issued a corrigendum dated 26.8.2023 changing the criteria and deleted the condition of passing Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test-II (PSET-II) for the purpose of selection of Physical Education Masters/Mistress and appointments were proposed to be made even from amongst the candidates who had not passed the said test.

3. Two writ petitions bearing No.CWP No.18522 of 2023 & CWP No.19528 of 2023 were filed challenging the aforesaid action of the authorities. The single Bench while deciding the aforesaid writ petitions held that requirement of passing TET as laid down in the advertisement originally cannot be said in any manner to be illegal or unjustified and accordingly allowed the writ petitions holding therein that the corrigendum dated 26.8.2023 was illegal. The relevant extract from the judgment of single Bench is reproduced herein under:-

"20. It is, thus, held that the conditions of the advertisement cannot be said to be de hors the rules. The appointing authority can add additional qualification more than which has been laid down by the NCTE in its regulations for appointing teachers in their department. Hence, the requirement of passing PSTET-II laid down in the advertisement originally cannot be said in any manner to be illegal or unjustified. The corrigendum-cum-public notice dated 26.08.2023 issued after the declaration of the final result is declared an attempt to change the rule after the game has already been played, and therefore, has to be held illegal in view of the law settled by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sivanandan C. T. (supra), K. Manjusree vs State of Andhra Pradesh 2008 (3) SCC 512 and subsequent judgments Dr. Abhishek Vyas, Lalit Kishore including the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Government of NCT Delhi and others vs Pradeep Kumar and others 2019 (10) SCC 120, judgments of this Court in CWP No. 26795 of 2016 - Shikha Rani and another vs State of Haryana and others decided on 25.10.2017, Rekha vs State of Haryana 2018 (1) SCT 529, Suman vs State of Haryana and others 2018 (3) SCT 649 and Arvinder Singh and others vs State of Punjab and others 2022 (2) PLR 135. The corrigendum-cum-public notice dated 26.08.2023 would, therefore, be held inoperative and only those candidates who are eligible in terms of the original advertisement shall be entitled to be appointed on the post of Physical Education Teachers."

4. The private respondents who had not passed the TET filed the LPA challenging the judgment of single Bench. However, the LPA was dismissed by passing a detailed order.

5. This Court has gone through the judgment of single Bench and also the judgment passed in LPA wherein all the relevant issues particularly as regards validity of prescribed qualification of passing TET has been found to be justified whereas changing the qualification midway the recruitment process, in fact after the written test has been conducted, was found to be illegal and contrary in ratio of various judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court passed in Madan Lal and others Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and others, (1995) 3 SCC 486; K.A. Nagamani Vs. Indian Airlines and others (2009) 5 SCC 515; Manish Kumar Shahi Vs. State of Bihar and others, (2010) 12 SCC 576; Madras Institute of Development Studies and another Vs. Sivasubramaniyan and othe