NEERAJA MALIK Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed to quash Annexure P-6 and Annexure P-7 which contain the decision of the Haryana Public Service Commission (hereafter referred to as 'the Commission') to reject the claim of the petitioner to be considered for appointment as Lecturer in English.

(2.) The petitioner passed her Matric and B.A. with 1st Division. She passed M.A. (English) with 58.4.% marks. In the year 1988, she was selected for appointment as Lecturer in English in Chhotu Ram Arya College, Sonepat by a duly constituted Selection Committee, which among others consisted of nominees of the Vice Chancellor, Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak and the Director, Higher Education, Haryana. The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer on 17.10.1988 against a permanent post. In response to advertisement Annexure P-5 issued by the Commission for recruitment to the post of Lecturer (English) (College Cadre), the petitioner submitted her application. Apprehending that her candidature may not be considered on the pretext that she has not passed the eligibility test, the petitioner made representation Annexure P6 to the Secretary of the Commission but the Commission has refused to consider the claim of the petitioner as would appear from the impugned communication Annexure P7. The petitioner has challenged the decision of the Commission not to consider the candidature on the ground that the University Grants Commission has already relaxed the requirement of eligibility test in cases of persons who are serving as Lecturers on permanent basis after regular selection by a duly constituted selection committee, and, therefore, respondents 1 and 2 are not justified in rejecting her candidature for the post of Lecturer (English).

(3.) In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, the State of Haryana, it has been pleaded that as per notification dated 19.9.1991 which enumerates the qualifications required for various teaching posts and which has been accepted by the State Government, no candidate who has not passed the eligibility test can be considered for recruitment to the post of Lecturer and, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any right to be considered for recruitment as Lecturer. This respondent has pleaded that the decision taken by the University Grants Commission in its meeting held on 14.2.1995 cannot be treated as binding in view of the fact that the same has not been notified in terms of Section 14 read with Section 26(1) (a) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). Reliance has been placed by respondent State of Haryana on a decision of this Court in C.W.P. No. 11654 of 1993 (Gillu Ram Sangwan v. State of Haryana and others) to support its plea that the petitioner is not eligible to be considered for recruitment to the post of Lecturer.