MONIKA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 108 and 3021 of 2004, which have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing order dated 20.11.2003 (P-3), passed by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (for brevity, 'the Commission'), whereby the applications of the petitioners for the posts of Art and Craft Teacher in Education Department have been rejected holding that the diploma held by the petitioners is incomplete. It is appropriate to mention that the petitioners have qualified three years diploma in Commercial Art and Industrial Design from the Government Polytechnic for Women, Ambala City (for brevity, 'three years diploma'), whereas the qualification for the posts of Art and Craft Teacher is two years diploma in Art and Craft Examination conducted by the Haryana Industrial Training Department (for brevity, 'two years diploma') or equivalent qualification.

(2.) When these petitions came up for consideration of a Division Bench of this Court on 22.7.2004, it was directed that the petitioners shall be provisionally interviewed for the post of Art and Craft Teacher and their result was not to be declared without prior permission of this Court. Accordingly, the petitioners were interviewed. Thereafter on 8.2.2005, the result of the petitioners was produced in a sealed cover, which was opened by the Bench Secretary for the perusal of the Court. It was found that in the merit list of General Category candidates the names of the petitioners figured at Sr. Nos. 541 to 546. It is appropriate to mention that in the advertisement dated 7.11.2003 (P-2), 664 posts of Art and Craft teacher were advertised with the following breakup :-

(3.) It is, thus, evident that for General Category there were only 287 posts of Art and Craft teacher against total number of 664 posts. The names of the petitioners in the select list figure at Sr. Nos. 541 to 546, which is far below the number of posts which were to be filled in pursuance to the advertisement dated 7.11.2003 (P-2). In view of the aforesaid finding recorded by this Court, the writ petitions were dismissed on 8.2.2005. Even review applications bearing R.A. No. 45 of 2005 in C.W.P. No. 108 of 2004 and R.A. No. 59 of 2005 in C.W.P. No. 3021 of 2004 were filed. R.A. No. 45 of 2005 was dismissed vide order dated 21.3.2005 because neither any detail of the order dated 8.2.2005, which was sought to be reviewed, was given nor copy of the order was placed on record. Thereafter, another review application bearing R.A. No. 86 of 2005 in C.W.P. No. 108 of 2004 was filed. The aforementioned review application Nos. 59 and 86 of 2005 were also dismissed on 4.4.2005.