NIRMALENDU Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment passed by learned Single Judge dated 26.11.2012 whereby her writ petition was dismissed.

(2.) Briefly, the facts, necessary for adjudication of the controversy involved, as narrated in the appeal, may be noticed. The State of Haryana through the Board of School Education, Haryana issued prospectus for the Haryana Teachers Eligibility Test 2011 (HTET) for selection of teachers for Classes first to eight and for Lecturers. The last date for submission of applications was 12.8.2011. The pattern of question paper of HTET 2011 was Multiple Choice Questions with a total number of 150, each carrying one mark and the duration of examination was one and a half hours. The qualifying marks for the HTET 23011 were 60% i.e. 90 marks out of 150 for general category and Backward Class category. It was also specifically mentioned in the prospectus of HTET 2011 on page No.8 that relaxation of 5% in minimum qualifying marks at Post Graduate level was admissible to Scheduled Caste and differently able candidates. The appellant belongs to Scheduled Caste category. She being eligible and fulfilling all the essential qualifications and conditions submitted her application form on 1.8.2011 for the post of Lecturer. She was issued Roll Number on 22.10.2011. On 5.11.2011, the appellant took the HTET examination for PGT level in the year 2011 and she got 82 marks out of 150. According to the appellant, there was no provision for fraction in marks and if relaxation of 5% marks i.e. 08 marks was given to her, then she could have been considered as HTET qualified because she belongs to Scheduled Caste category. The said benefit was not given to the appellant. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached respondent No.2 many times but no response was received. Thereafter, the appellant approached this Court through CWP No.14417 of 2012 which was also dismissed vide order dated 26.11.2012 impugned herein. Hence the present Letters Patent Appeal.

(3.) The appellant has claimed that in the prospectus, there is a provision of 5% relaxation in marks in the qualifying examination. According to the counsel, since total marks were 150, therefore, by giving relaxation of 5%, the marks work out to be 7.50 and in such a situation, after adding the same to the marks obtained by the candidate it should have been rounded off to the nearest whole number. Reliance was placed on judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court in State of UP and another Vs. Pawan Kumar Tiwari and others, AIR 2005 SC 658 , Gujarat High Court in Virenbhai Jayantibhai Jani Vs. B.Ed. Centralised Admission Committee 2009-2010 and others, 2010(5) SLR 432 , this Court in Rakesh Kumar Vs. Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar and others, 1989(2) Current Law Journal 596 , Kamal Prabha Sharma Vs. The Maharshi Dayanand University, 1992(3) SCT 21 , Miss Raman Vs. Punjabi University, Patiala, 2001(3) SCT 1030 and Bombay High Court in Kum. Harsha Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2009(4) ALL MR 842 in support of his contention.