LAKHVIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of two petitions bearing CWP Nos. 28754 of 2013 and 833 of 2014, as common questions of law and facts are involved.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on 3.10.2013, 264 posts of Headmaster were advertised on contract basis. The qualifications and experience were prescribed. However, in general conditions, mentioned at Sr. No. 9 in the advertisement, it was provided that for the post of Headmaster, the teaching experience from Class VI to XII as master/mistress or Lecturer (School Cadre) shall be considered valid. The submission is that such a condition prescribed in the advertisement was contrary to the Punjab State Education Class III (School Cadre) Service (First Amendment) Rules, 1995 (for short, 'the Rules'), in which the only requirement is experience of 8 years. It does not specify the level at which the experience is required. The petitioners in the present case are fully qualified and have teaching experience at college level. In the absence of such a provision in the Rules providing the same in the advertisement as one of the conditions runs contrary thereto and will have to be struck down. In support of the plea, reliance was placed upon the judgments of this Court in CWP No. 385 of 2007 Mahesh Kumar and another v. State of Punjab and others, decided on 9.4.2008; LPA No. 1988 of 2011 State of Punjab and others v. Priya Mahajan and others, decided on 16.1.2013 followed in CWP No. 11229 of 2008 Tarvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and others, decided on 22.10.2013.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the advertisement in the present case was issued on 3.10.2013. The qualifications and experience for the posts were clearly prescribed. The petitioners in response thereto applied for the posts duly understanding the qualifications and experience required. They participated in the process of selection as had appeared during the course of counselling. It was only when they were informed of their eligibility in terms of the conditions laid down in the advertisement that they challenged the same before this court. In terms of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dhananjay Malik and others v. State of Uttaranchal and others, 2008 AIR(SC) 1913, a candidate after participating in the process of selection and having failed cannot be permitted to challenge the conditions laid down therein. The judgment of this Court in CWP No. 7390 of 2011 Harjeet Kaur v. State of Punjab and others, decided on 12.1.2012, as upheld in LPA No. 302 of 2012 Harjeet Kaur v. State of Punjab and others, decided on 21.8.2012, was also referred to.