VINOD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 2208 of 2005, 19928 of 2005 and 436 of 2005 as the common questions of facts and law are involved. For the sake of convenience, facts are being referred from C.W.P. No. 2208 of 2005.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged the selection and appointment of private respondents on the post of Physical Training Instructor (for brevity, 'PTI') as per the result declared by the Haryana Subordinate Staff Selection Commission-respondent No. 3 (for brevity, 'the Commission'). It is appropriate to mention that the Commission on the requisition received from respondent No. 1, had issued an advertisement No. 7/2003 on 18.10.2003 (P-I4), inviting applications for 382 posts of PTI in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000 (Category 3). Further break up is given in the advertisement and 165 posts have been allocated to the General Category apart from the reservation made in favour of Scheduled Castes, Backward Classes, Ex-Servicemen and Outstanding Sports person. The essential qualifications prescribed in the advertisement are Matric from the Haryana School Education Board or an equivalent qualification; Certificate in Physical Education conducted by the Haryana Education Department or an equivalent qualification recognised by the Haryana Education Department; and knowledge of Hindi up to Matric standard

(3.) The petitioner has attacked the selection on the basis of two arguments, namely, that the private respondents did not fulfill the educational qualification as they were merely Matriculate whereas for qualifying the Certificate in Physical Education minimum educational qualification is 10+2 pass and no person without having passed 10+2 examination, can take admission in the Certificate Course in Physical Education, after the Sessions 2001. The other argument is that the criteria as disclosed in the advertisement provide 30 marks for the Viva Voce test whereas 60 marks have been allocated to the academic qualification. It has been submitted that prescription of 50% marks as compared to 100 marks for academic qualification is arbitrary and violate the mandate of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution.