107 (3 cases)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

1.

CWP-26369-2024 (O&M)

SANJEEV KUMAR . . . . Petitioner Vs.

CHANDIGARH ADMIN. TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS . . . . Respondents ****

2.

CWP-12633-2017 (O&M)

INDU RANI . . . . Petitioner Vs.

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH AND ORS . . . . Respondents ****

3.

CWP-4546-2025 (O&M)

SONAM GUPTA . . . . Petitioner Vs.

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS . . . . Respondents ****

Date of Decision: 06.03.2025 ****

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

Present: Mr. Nitin Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate for the respondents No.3 and 4.

Ms. Jyoti Choudhary, Sr. Panel Counsel for the UOI.

****

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)

1. This order shall dispose of these three writ petitions as issue involved these cases is similar. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from CWP-26369-2024, as lead case.

2. The petitioner assails the order dated 14.03.2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) whereby his claim for seeking appointment on the post of TGT (Fine Arts) has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the petitioner does not only possess Fine Arts as one of the subjects at the stage of graduation from Panjab University namely B.A. with Fine Arts, but has also done post-graduation M.A. in Fine Arts from Kurukshetra University. He submits that his qualification has to be treated as equivalent to that of Bachelor of Fine Arts (BFA) and such a certificate has been issued by the Kurukshetra University, Department of Fine Arts, which has been placed before the CAT. The certificate is dated

23.06.2015.

4. Learned counsel submits that on the strength of his having done B.A.

with one of the subject as Fine Arts, he was admitted in the post- graduation course M.A. in Fine Arts. He has also done B.Ed. with one of the teaching subjects of Fine Arts. Thus, he is fully qualified and he be considered for appointment on the post of TGT (Fine Arts) by the respondents.

5. Learned counsel has also invited attention to the earlier advertisement issued for appointment on the post of TGT (Fine Arts) wherein it was specified that a candidate may have either Bachelor of Fine Arts as a degree or with one of the subjects as Fine Arts in graduation. He thus submits that a consistent approach has been adopted by the respondents in allowing candidates who have done graduation with one of the subjects as Fine Arts to be appointed as TGT.

6. He has also taken this Court to the decision taken by the Committee which resolved that BFA degree of the Panjab University be considered equivalent to the Master’s degree in the subject of Fine Arts, and thereafter the Chandigarh Administration appointed one Sita Kushwah as TGT Mistress in Fine Arts in Govt. Senior Secondary School on

19.04.2002.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Chandigarh Administration has invited our attention to the advertisement issued wherein the petitioner has applied. As per the advertisement, requisite qualification required is Bachelor of Fine Arts (BFA) degree or its equivalent from a recognized University with at least 50% marks. Thus, he submits that the qualifications have to be read as mentioned in the advertisement, and no person having any other qualification can be allowed to be treated as eligible and qualified for appointment under the said advertisement. There is no corrigendum issued to the said advertisement issued by the Education Department of Chandigarh Administration, and therefore no interpretation can be taken by this Court for that matter, different from what has been mentioned in the advertisement.

8. He relies on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Anoop M. and others vs. Gireeshkumar T.M. and others, (2025) 1 SCC 729, as well as Full Bench judgment of this Court in Som Dutt vs. State of Haryana and another, 1984(1) ILR (Punjab) 400,