RAM KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS batch of writ petitions concern the advertisement in selection of teachers in the following categories: Hindi, Punjabi and Sanskrit as subjects and PTI and Art & Craft teachers.

(2.) THE batch of writ petitions contained a challenge to the selection to the posts on the ground that the selection was made from a State merit list pooling all the candidates interviewed in various districts en bloc discarding district -wise merit list for the respective vacancies in each district. This, according to the petitioners, constitute an infraction of the relevant rules that stipulate the posts as belonging to the district cadre and the appointing authority as DEO. The State of Haryana has framed rules called, the Haryana State Education School School Cadre (Group C) Service Rules, 1998 (for short, the 1998 Rules) that has come into force after the publication of official gazette on 29.01.1998. Prior to the issuance of these rules, the selection had been governed by the Punjab Education Service Class III (School Cadre) Rules, 1955. Rule 6 of the 1998 Rules provided for appointment to the posts were to be made by the respective District Education Officer of the concerned district. The advertisement issued, contained a condition at serial No.12 that candidates submitting more than one application at one or more places will be declared disqualified. As far as PTI teachers, they would, therefore, contend that the State had committed an error in advertising 622 posts with the State as a whole. A similar challenge is mounted for the other categories also. According to them, since the number of posts in each district ought to have been given in the advertisement which was not given, the number of posts existing on the last date fixed for the receipt of applications ought to be taken as the number of posts for which the selection was required to be made.

(3.) THE respondents have filed written statement through the District Education Officer Shri S.P. Chaudhary. The respondents would explain that the selection criteria had been so framed as giving the maximum emphasis on academic merit. 70% marks had been allotted for academic qualification with weightage of 5% for still higher qualification. 5% weightage for experience and only 20 marks had been kept for the interview. The contention was, therefore, the element of subjectivity at the interview was kept to the minimum. Explaining that the State level merit list was most appropriate to avoid discrimination with meritorious candidates in one district, the justification was that it was strictly in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Referring to the contention of personal bias and the allegations that the son and daughter of the Chairman had applied in various categories, the respondents would state that the son Pawan Kumar had applied only in general category under Roll No.10977 and the daughter Sunita had also applied as a general category candidate. Their selection itself was considered on the basis of the decision of the High Court in CWP No.18201 of 1999. He would also claim that he had not been sitting in the process of selection/interview when his son and daughter had appeared and in his absence one Shri Rajinder Singh, senior member of the Committee was the Head of the Interview Committee. Joining issues on the mistakes in roll numbers given to the candidates and the repetition of the same numbers to several candidates, the answer is that the mistake was rectified and separate roll numbers had been later assigned.