SATISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court praying for quashing of the letter dated 05.07.1999 (Annexure P-5), vide which despite his selection against the post of Lecturer in History (School Cadre), he has not been issued the appointment letter by the respondents on the ground that he has passed his M.A. (History) from the Rajasthan vidyapeeth, Udaipur on the ground that the same is not recognized by the Haryana Government. Prayer has also been made for quashing of appointment of respondent No. 6-Manoj Kumar as Lecturer in History, who is lower in merit to the petitioner in the select list and has been appointed in place of the petitioner.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned letter dated 05.07.1999 (Annexure P-5), vide which it has been conveyed to the petitioner that he cannot be appointed to the post of Lecturer in History as the degree of M.A. in History obtained by him from Rajasthan vidyapeeth, Udaipur is not recognized by the Government of Haryana cannot sustain in the light of the notification dated 12.01.1987 (Annexure P-1), vide which Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Education), Government of India has, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 on advice of the Commission, declared Rajasthan vidyapeeth, Udaipur to be a deemed University and the instructions dated 18.03.1975 issued by the Commissioner and Secretary of Government of Haryana, Education Department, wherein it was provided that the degree and diplomas etc. recognized by the Government of India shall be recognized by the Government of Haryana and the degrees, diplomas etc. issued by the recognized universities and High/Higher Secondary Board established by the State shall be recognized ipsofacto. He, on this basis, contends that the Post Graduate degree, as possessed by the petitioner, is recognized by the Government of Haryana and the stand of the respondents for not issuing him the appointment letter deserve to be rejected.

(3.) In support of this contention, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in CWP No. 12161 of 2006 titled as Manoj Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 01.11.2006 (Annexure P- 9). He further contends that the posts, which were advertised by the respondents, have not been filled up and certain posts are still lying vacant, against which the petitioner can be appointed even if the appointment given to respondent No. 4 is not to be set aside after such a long period. He submits that the petitioner foregoes his claim of monetary benefits, which he would be entitled to, in case the present writ petition is allowed and shall be satisfied if other consequential benefits are granted to the petitioner.