USHA RANI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CUT-THROAT competition in job seeking the rat race to out-wit each other is singularly patent in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is about between two female teachers vying with each other to get a post of an ad hoc Social Studies teacher in the Government Girls High School, Kosli, Distt. Rohtak.

(2.) SHORN off unnecessary details the case as put by the petitioner-Usha Rani is this: In November 1983, there were three posts available in the Government Girls High School, Kosli for Social Study Mistresses. The Acting Headmaster of the School-Roshan Lal, respondent No. 5, had sent a requisition to the Employment Exchange for the purpose. Eight persons applied, inclusive of the petitioner and Smt. Prem Lata, respondent No. 4 and they were interviewed. The Government of Haryana had issued instructions to the Headmasters of Schools as to how to assess the relative merit of the candidates for such posts leaving no discretion to them to toy with somebody's iate. The formula of recruitment of teachers is set out in annexure R/1, authenticated by the District Education Officer, Rohtak. In accordance therewith, marks 'were to be assigned to the candidates under various classified Heads and the Heads relevant for the purposes of the present petition are noted below:

(3.) AT this stage I must record a few concessions made by the learned Counsel. Though it is alleged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that Smt. Prem Lata respondent earned the status of being a Teacher's wife surreptitiously by her husband securing an ad hoc appointment near about the time when the petitioner took the appointment, yet he says that for the purpose of this petition, it be taken that Smt. Prem Lata was a teacher's wife and entitled to two marks due to her under Head-8. On the other hand, Mr. U. D. Gour, learned Counsel for Smt. Prem Lata respondent, claiming that she was entitled to one mark on account of cultural activities frankly conceded that her case cannot fall squarely under Head-6, for she had not obtained the first prize for such activities but had only been commended as was plain from annexure R/4. Equally, to the challenge made to the teaching experience of the petitioner being a day short of six months (she having worked from September 1,1981 to February 27,1982 as shown in annexure P/2) and thus not completely for six months disentitling her to claim one mark under Head-7. Mr. Gour concedes that on account of February 28, 1982 being Sunday the teaching experience of the petitioner was of six months entitling her to a mark. On these clear concessions learned Counsel for the parties are agreed that both the candidates, that is, the petitioner and respondent No. 4 were to be held entitled to 42v2 marks each and thus equals as far as the rating goes. They were obviously above the candidate of the 4th position.