SUKHBIR SINGH SON OF SH. RAMPHAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH SECRETARY TECHNICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges the action of the Jat Education Society arrayed as the 3rd respondent in its decision to fill up the post of the Head of the Department, Electronics and Communication Engineering in the college that it is running namely Chhotu Ram Polytechnic, Rohtak arrayed as the 5th respondent by way of direct recruitment, which is purported to be in violation of the Rules and the directions given by the State Government. The petitioner's case is rested on a contention that the relevant Rules governing the appointment to the post as the Head of the Department provide for appointment by promotion to 75% of the posts and by directment recruitment to 25% of the posts, and having regard to the fact that the post of Head of the Department is a single post, in terms of the Government instructions dated 14.03.2008, it has to be filled up only by promotion. The cause of action for the petition is an advertisement notification issued on 25.11.2008 calling for eligible candidates for appointment to the post, inter alia, for Head of the Department by direct recruitment. The petitioner's further contention is that as per the relevant Rule, which is the Haryana Technical Education Department (Group A) Service Rules, 1986, the requirement of academic qualification and experience is 12 years as Lecturer in Electronics and Communication Engineering out of which 2 years experience must be as Senior Lecturer in Electronics and Communication Engineering and that the candidate must have a 1st Class Bachelor's degree in Electronics and Communication Engineering and Technology from a recognized University/Institute with 8 years experience as Lecturer in Electronics and Communication Engineering in a University or College affiliated to University or 8 years professional experience on a gazetted Electronics & Communication Egnineering post with knowledge of Hindi upto matriculation standard. The petitioner would contend that he had the necessary experience and he had actually been working as Head of the Department since 17.09.2001 itself and the selection, which is purported to have been made through direct recruitment of the 5th respondent was irregular against the relevant Recruitment Rules.

(2.) THE contention of the petitioner is contested by the 5th respondent on the ground that the direct recruitment was always permissible under the Rules if there was no person eligible for consideration for appointment by promotion and the petitioner's qualifications themselves did not merit consideration of the petitioner to the post. The objection with reference to the qualification is on the basis that the petitioner deliberately does not give the necessary details of his teaching experience as Lecturer and the documents produced by the petitioner as Annexure P-1 merely describes himself as follows:-

(3.) LEARNED Senior Counsel, Sh. Malik, would support the contentions of the pre-eminent claims of the petitioner for consideration for appointment to the Head of the Department on the ground that the Rules do not stipulate anywhere that it should be continuous service and all that it requires is 8 years or 12 years experience as Lecturer and it is inconsequential if there has been any breaks in service. As a second line of argument, the learned counsel would contend that the amendment in the Rules which had been provided for through the notification dated 11.11.2008 will be operative only prospectively and since a vacancy had arisen even earlier, the case would require to be considered only on the basis of the unamended regulations that did not stipulate that the appointment should have been to a regular post. The fact that the petitioner had been working as a Lecturer as contractual employee, according to him, therefore would be immaterial. The learned Senior Counsel would rely on the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court and by this Court to contend for two positions: One; if there is a reference to experience, it would be irrelevant whether such experience was a contractual employee or as a regular employee. This is supported through the judgment of this Court in Geeta Devi Vs. State of Haryana and another in C.W.P. No.21663 of 2008 where the Division Bench dealing with Rule 7 of the Haryana Technical Education Rules specifically raised the question and answered as follows:-