STATE OF HARYANA Vs. JOGINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Delay condoned. By this order, we propose to dispose of these 11 appeals as the common question of law and facts are involved therein. For brevity, the facts are taken from Letters Patent Appeal No. 1641 of 2010.

(2.) In all these appeals, the controversy is as to whether 'Unit Education Instructor Course' which is undertaken by the respondents herein from the Army Educational Corps Training College and Centre, Panchmarhi, can be treated to be equivalent to the J.B.T. Teachers so as to hold the respondents eligible for appointment as J.B.T. Teachers in the State of Haryana. All the respondents had applied for the posts of J.B.T. teachers in the State of Haryana and were selected. Some of them were allowed to join initially but thereafter their services were sought to be terminated by the State/appellant on the ground that the aforesaid course is not equivalent to the J.B.T. course recognized by the Haryana Government. Some other respondents, who were selected and yet to be given appointments, were denied these appointments. These respondents filed the writ petitions which have been allowed by the learned Single Judge holding the aforesaid course undertaken by the respondents as equivalent to the J.B.T. course.

(3.) For better understanding of the matter, we would, in the first instance, like to reproduce the clauses prescribed for appointments/selection as J.B.T. teacher in the Haryana Primary Education (Group-C) District Cadre Service Rules, 1994. These are as under:-