SMT. SHALLU Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Challenge in the instant writ petition is to the selection and appointment of private respondent No.3 on the post of PGT (Economics) under the Haryana State Education Department. Further prayer is for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post in question.

(2.) Brief facts that would require notice are that the Haryana School Teachers Selection Board issued an advertisement dated 07.06.2012 at Annexure P-1 inviting applications for recruitment of Post Graduate Teachers (PGTs) in different subjects. 449 posts of PGT (Economics) were advertised and out of which 279 were to be filled up from the General Category. The educational qualifications prescribed for the post of PGT (Economics) was "M.A. Economics/Applied Economics/Business Economics with at least 50% marks and B.Ed. from recognised University". Petitioner, being eligible, applied for the post of PGT (Economics) under the General Category. The criteria adopted by the respondent/Board for making selection to the post of PGT was in terms of assigning 67 marks towards academic qualifications and 33 marks for viva voce/interview i.e. a total of 100 marks. Petitioner appeared in the viva voce/interview and the final result was declared on 16.12.2013. Needless to observe that the petitioner's name did not figure in the final select list.

(3.) Counsel would submit that the details of marks obtained in the academic qualification as well as viva voce/interview were posted on the website of the respondent/Board and as per which last selected candidate i.e. respondent No.3 has been granted 28 marks in the viva voce/interview out of a total of 33 marks whereas petitioner has been awarded only 12 marks. It is contended that in the academic qualifications, the petitioner had secured 40.43 marks as opposed to 26.4 marks secured by respondent No.3 and by adopting a methodology of awarding unduly high marks to private respondent No.3, she has managed to secure a total of 54.43 (28 + 26.4) marks as opposed to the petitioner who has secured a total of 52.43 (12 + 40.43) marks. Argument raised is that in spite of the last selected candidate having inferior academic qualifications and having secured less than 30 marks out of a total of 67 marks, yet very high marks have been awarded in the viva voce/interview so as to ensure her selection and the petitioner who had secured 40.43 marks in the academic qualification has been deliberately under assessed at the stage of viva voce/interview and has been awarded only 12 marks. As per counsel, such methodology has been adopted with an ulterior motive and only to favour private respondent No.3.