SURINDER NATH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as Sanskrit teacher by an order dated 25.11.1968, issued by the District Education Officer, Rohtak. At that time, he possessed the qualification of Visharad from Punjab University. He had also passed English examination of Matric standard from Panjab University in the year 1964. During the course of service, he passed Honours in Sanskrit (Shastri) Part-I examination from Punjab University in the year 1976. He also secured Diploma (Honours) in Sanskrit (Shastri) from the same University in the year 1985. On the basis of the provisions contained in the Haryana School Education Code, the petitioner applied for grant of special Certificate. However, his request was declined vide memorandum dated 20.11.1992 (Annexure P-10) on the ground that he does not fulfil the condition of eligibility. It is this action of the respondent which the petitioner has assailed in this writ petition. He has prayed for issue of a direction to quash order (Annexure P-10) and direct the respondents to grant special Certificate with all the consequential benefits and also to grant him the pay scale of Sanskrit teacher as revised from time to time.

(2.) The writ petition has been contested on the ground that the petitioner does not fulfil the conditions of eligibility specified in Appendix 'D' of the Punjab Education Service Class III School Cadre Rules, 1957. Respondents hve pleaded that for appointment of Sanskrit teachers, a person must possess Shastri (Honours in Sanskrit) S.T.C. or O.T. and as the petitioner does not fulfil this qualification, he has no right to be granted the special certificate and consequential benefits.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of a learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No.3258 of 1986 (Krishan Dutt Nirmal V/s. State of Haryana and others) decided on 135.1988 and also a decision of Division Bench in Civil Writ Petition No.5355 of 1992 (Nathu Ram Sharma V/s. State of Haryana and others) decided on 16.9.1992. Learned Assistant Advocate General could not point out any fact on the basis of which the petitioner's case could be distinguished from that of Nathu Ram Sharma, whose writ petition was allowed by the Division Bench.