DEEPAK SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as S.S. Master by taking into consideration the experience certificates, Annexures P-3 and P-4.

(2.) In brief, the facts are that though the advertisement published in the Tribune dated 29.7.1991, the Director of Secondary Education, Haryana, invited applications for three categories of posts of teachers, for S.S. Master, qualification prescribed was B.A./B.Ed. from a recognised university. It is the case of the petitioner that members of the Interview Committee headed by respondent No.3 refused to take cognizance of the teaching experience certificates (Annexures P-3 and P-4) on the ground that the petitioner has not acquired the teaching experience by virtue of his appointment as S.S. Master. According to the petitioner, the Selection Committee gave the benefit of teaching experience to one Om Parkash, Laboratory Assistant in Govt. Sr. Secondary School, Hissar, while selecting him for the post of Lecturer in History. The said Om Parkash had taught classes like the petitioner in addition to his own duties while working as Laboratory Assistant. Petitioner has also made a mention that the Selection Committee headed by District Education Officer has given benefit of teaching experience acquired by Surinder Mohan in addition to his own duties as Laboratory Assistant/Clerk in different schools, and on the basis of his selection Surinder Mohan has been appointed as S.S. Master in District Kaithal. The petitioner, thus, has averred that the action of the respondents in not recognising the teaching experience acquired by him in addition to his duties as Clerk is discriminatory, particularly when the respondents have recognised such teaching experience in the case of afore-said Om Parkash and Surinder Mohan. The petitioner has also placed reliance upon judgment of this Court rendered in Civil Writ Petition No.9276 of 1993 (Satish Kumar versus State of Haryana and others on 22.2.1994.

(3.) The secand taken by the respondents in the written statement is again the one which was taken in Satish Kumar's case . Counsel for the State has contended that certificates, Annexures P-3 and P-4 could not be taken into consideration as the petitioner was not working as S.S. Master but was a Clerk. This very contention of counsel for the State did not find favour with the Division Bench is Satish Kumar's case as it was found that the petitioner, Satish Kumar possessed She requisite educational qualification i.e. B.A. B.Ed. and for two years' teaching experience, weightage was also to be granted. Here the experience certificates (P-3 and P-4) furnished by the petitioner have not been taken into consideration on the ground that he was only a Clerk and worked as S.S. Master only in addition to his duties. The said experience certificates were countersigned by Sub-Divisional Educational Officer, Narnaul. The certificates show that the petitioner had taught students for the period from 1.1.1990 to 31.12.1990 and from 1.1.1991 to 31.7.1991. The contention that aforesaid Om Parkash and Surinder Mohan had taught classes Eke the petitioner in addition to their duties while working as Laboratory Assistants/Clerk, has not been specifically denied by the respondents. In this view of the matter, I am of the view that the respondents were not justified in ignoring the certificates of teaching experience particularly when the Sub-Divisional Education Officer, Narnaul had countersigned the same. Counsel for the State has also not been able to show that as to how the case of the petitioner is distinguishable from that of Satish Kumar's case.