POONAM GODARA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for the following substantive reliefs:-

(2.) The petitioner claims that she was appointed as Extension Lecturer on 01.08.2014. She applied for maternity leave on 06.03.2017.

(3.) However, since the same was not sanctioned, therefore, as per medical advice, she stopped coming to the job after 08.04.2017. Now, she has filed the present writ petition seeking a direction, to allow her to rejoin on the post of Extension Lecturer. Although, in the writ petition, it has not been disclosed, however, learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that the petitioner is not NET/PHD qualified. The Haryana Government has taken a policy decision on 04.03.2020, to the effect that those candidates who are ineligible i.e. have not qualified NET/PHD, shall not be appointed and if appointed shall be phased out. The aforesaid policy decision has been upheld by a Division Bench in CWP-6968-2020 titled as Suman Devi Vs. State of Haryana and others, alongwith other writ petitions vide judgment dated 22.09.2020. The Division Bench framed three issues for consideration. Issue No.1 is with regard to validity of the policy which has been upheld by the Division Bench. Still further, another Division Bench in LPA-395-2020 titled as Pulkit Arya and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 06.08.2020, has once again held that the Extension Lecturers, who have not qualified NET/PHD, have no right to continue.