ISHWAR SINGH, Vs. HARYANA PRATHMIK SHIKSHA PARIYOJNA PARISHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who had applied for the post of Special Teacher for Visually Impaired under the scheme Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan was not considered on the ground that she did not have the minimum educational qualification requiring of 50% marks in the graduate course. The petitioner's contention was that in terms of the clarification obtained from the Controller (P&A) Admn. acting on behalf of the State Project Director on 18.11.2010, if the minimum qualification of a candidate was required to have 55% but had less than the said percentage he could be treated as still qualified if he had a post graduate qualification. The petitioner's case is rested on three grounds: i) The Punjab Government running the same type of scheme did not stipulate the requirement as a minimum 50% pass in graduate course and fixing of 50% by Haryana Government was, therefore arbitrary. ii) In terms of the direction issued on 18.11.2010 when a candidate had a postgraduate qualification the lesser marks obtained in the graduate course should be discarded. Iii) There was no relaxation of the marks criterion for a Schduled Caste candidate and therefore it is invalid.The contention in defence is that the instruction which was issued on 18.11.2010 was for a prior notification of the earlier year and the clarification was with reference to marks stipulated as 55%. Now that the qualification had been further reduced to 50% marks, there was no scope for dilution of this requirement by reference to the circular providing for discarding this qualification when the candidate had a postgraduate qualification. The other contentions of the petitioner are also denied.

(2.) As regards the first contention that the Punjab Government did not specify the requirement as 50% marks I would hold that it is wholly irrelevant, for, what is applicable in one State need not necessarily be the criterion in another State. As regards the second ground, the reliance on the notification issued on 18.11.2010 cannot give any vested right to any candidate that even for a subsequent year where the minimum qualification had been reduced to 50%, the postgraduate qualification would dispel the requirement of minimum percentage of marks in the graduate course. Again these are mere instructions to obtain uniformity in approach through out the State and not to be treated as though there were statutory rules. If the instructions of the year 2010 had made reference to a situation when the minimum marks for graduate course was 55%, I cannot find that to be a point in favour of the petitioner to be applied even for the next year's selection when the minimum marks stipulated were 50%. As regards the third contention that there was no relaxation extended for a SC candidate, when the advertisement had been issued, if there was a grievance for the petitioner about failure to provide for relaxation she ought to have challenged it immediately and after having applied for the post without demur, she cannot be heard to contend that relaxation for a Schedule Caste as regards the marks criterion had not been given. Further, while it is permissible for State to provide for lower qualifying marks for SC/ST/OBC in the constitutional scheme of things, the absence of such relaxation cannot be claimed as unconstitutional. It is essentially an issue of executive policy for the extent of relaxation that may be provided for social and economic empowerment of weaker sections of society. The key pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India, 1992 Supp3 SCC 217, Ajit Singh (II) Vs. State of Punjab, 1999 7 SCC 209 and Ajit Singh (III) Vs. State of Punjab, 2000 1 SCC 430 underscore the principle that Article 16 (4) is itself an enabling provision and it neither imposes any constitutional duty nor confers any fundamental right for reservation. I cannot find any error in rejection to the petitioner's candidature and dismiss the writ petition.