KAMLA RANI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner questions the validity of order dated 14.10.2014, Annexure P9, whereby her candidature for appointment to the post of PGT (English) has been rejected.

(2.) Brief facts are that the Haryana School Teachers Selection Board (for short 'the Board') issued advertisement dated 7.6.2012 inviting applications for recruitment to various posts of PGT teachers including 1870 posts of PGT (English). The petitioner, who belongs to the General Category, is stated to have applied for the post of PGT (English) within the stipulated time frame. Petitioner was even interviewed on 8.11.2012. In the process of selection, petitioner was placed at merit serial No.38. Candidates lower in merit to the petitioner were issued appointment letters and allowed to join duties in the month of April, 2014. Qualifications and experience of the petitioner being under scrutiny, she was not offered appointment. Show cause notice dated 18.7.2014 was issued to the petitioner to which she submitted detailed reply dated 31.7.2014. Candidature of the petitioner stands rejected vide impugned order dated 14.10.2014 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government Haryana, School Education Department, Chandigarh. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that candidature of the petitioner has been rejected on the premise of being over-age.

(3.) Mr.RK Malik, learned Senior Counsel has argued that the petitioner was duly qualified for the post of PGT (English) as per the essential qualifications prescribed in the advertisement and as such, having been assigned merit position No.38 amongst the General Category candidate, she could not be denied her vested right of appointment to the post. Learned Senior Counsel would place heavy reliance on Rule 5 of the Haryana State Education School Cadre (Group 'B') Service Rules, 2012 (for short '2012 Rules') to contend that age relaxation in the upper age limit to the extent of service rendered by a teacher subject to a maximum of five years was envisaged. To take benefit of Rule 5 of 2012 Rules, it has been argued that date of birth of the petitioner is 1.1.1972 and the last date for submission of application forms as per advertisement, was 28.6.2012 and as on such date, age of the petitioner was 40 years and six months. It has been argued that as per Rule 5 of 2012 Rules, the upper age limit prescribed is 40 years of age, yet on account of the fact that the petitioner possessed teaching experience of almost eight years, she was entitled to age relaxation upto five years while under the given fact situation, the requirement was only of being granted relaxation of six months under Rule 5 of 2012 Rules. In furtherance of such submission, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the word 'teacher' as finding mention in Rule 5 of the Statutory Rules has to include within its ambit all types of teachers whether they have teaching experience in primary schools, high schools or colleges, as the case may be. Action of the respondent-Authorities in denying to the petitioner the benefit of relaxation of age under Rule 5 is contended to be arbitrary and illegal. Further submission made by the learned Senior Counsel is that the State of Haryana vide notification dated 26.8.2014 has raised the upper age limit for entry into Government service from 40 to 42 years and, accordingly, it is argued that the impugned order rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for the post of PGT (English) only on the premise of being over age cannot sustain in the light of such notification dated 26.8.2014.