HARINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An advertisement dated 6.6.2012 was published in local newspapers on 7.6.2012 for inviting applications for the posts of Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) HES-II (Group 'B') Service. Thereafter, a corrigendum was issued on 2.7.2012 by modifying the advertisement. As per condition No. 3 (c) (i) of the Corrigendum (Annexure P-2), the candidates who have worked as teachers for a minimum period of four years till 11.4.2012 in privately managed Government aided schools/ recognized schools and Government schools and were in service on 11.4.2012 were exempted to acquire qualifications of passing HTET/STET and B.Ed as one time measure. The petitioner having requisite experience on the cut off date i.e. 15.7.2012 applied for the said post. He was allotted the roll number and was also issued the interview letter on 16.7.2012. The interview was scheduled to be held on 27.9.2012. As per directions issued by respondent No. 3, the experience certificate was to be counter signed by the Director Schools/Elementary Education Officer of the concerned State and the same was to be submitted at the time of interview. The certificates submitted by the petitioner were not accepted as the same were not countersigned and he was not allowed to appear before the Interview Committee inspite of making request by the petitioner. The same was declined by raising certain objections. When request of the petitioner was not accepted, the present petition was filed, wherein, notice of motion was issued on 5.10.2012. A direction was also issued to Director Secondary Education, Haryana to countersign the experience certificates of the petitioner, if otherwise it was in order. The petitioner was provisionally allowed to be interviewed by Selection Committee but it was directed that his result be not declared till further orders. However, it was mentioned that interim order shall not confer any right, equity or claim in favour of the petitioner in any manner.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of directions issued by this Court on 5.10.2012, the petitioner was interviewed provisionally but his result has not been declared. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be satisfied in case direction is issued to the respondents to declare his result. Learned counsel also submits that even on merits, the petitioner has a good case as his claim has wrongly been rejected only on the ground that his experience certificates were not countersigned before the cut off date, whereas, the date was extended time and again and some of the candidates were even allowed to submit their experience certificates after countersigning. It is also the contention of learned counsel that experience certificates of the petitioners were of the period prior to cut off date but the same were not countersigned. The petitioner was also allowed to appear before the Selection Committee after issuance of directions by this Court and respondents were directed to countersign the certificates but inspite of this the result of the petitioner has not been declared so far.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that not only an objection of not countersigning experience certificate was there but three more objections were also raised, which were conveyed to the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the similar controversy was there in C.W.P. No. 22760 of 2014 titled as Indu Bala Vs. State of Haryana and others, which was dismissed on 24.1.2014 and the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the said decision, wherein, judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Manju Yadav Vs. State of Haryana and others (C.W.P. No. 23099 of 2012) decided on 4.12.2012 has been relied upon. Reliance has also been placed on judgment passed by this Court in C.W.P. No. 15252 of 2012 titled as Ajit Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and another decided on 9.10.2012.