AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)
The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ or order in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned communication dated 03.12.2022 (Annexures P-10 to P-15), whereby petitioners have been denied appointment to the posts of TGT Sanskrit, TGT Social Studies and PGT History for want of an HTET/STET examination certificate in accordance with the criteria prescribed by the Education Department, being contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Mamta Devi Versus State of Haryana and others, CWP-25154-2023, decided on 12.08.2026 (Annexure P-21). Further praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent-Nigam to accept the candidature of petitioners for selection to the above said posts, pursuance to their applications towards advertisement dated 06.10.2022 (Annexure P-1). Further directing respondents to disburse all actual benefits of service viz. arrears of salary and experience as TGT/PGT etc to petitioners, at par with their counterparts who have been discharging their duties in pursuance to their deployment.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that respondent-Haryana Kaushal Rozgar Nigam Limited (HKRNL) issued advertisements dated 06.10.2022, 07.10.2022 and 09.10.2022 (Annexures P-1 to P-3) inviting applications for various posts of TGT/PGT. The petitioners, possessing the requisite qualifications, applied for the posts of TGT Sanskrit, TGT Social Studies and PGT History, as the case may be, and participated in the selection process. Their applications were processed and, upon being found eligible and shortlisted, the petitioners were informed on 23.11.2022 through official communications regarding their selection/shortlisting and were called upon to furnish their consent through the online portal. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners furnished their consent and were also allocated districts/stations for deployment; however, appointment letters were not issued to them.
It is further contended that, thereafter, vide communications/SMS dated 03.12.2022 (Annexures P-10 to P-15), the candidature of the petitioners was rejected solely on the ground that their HTET/STET certificates were more than seven years old and, therefore, were stated to have ceased to be valid in terms of the then prevailing criteria. The petitioners rely upon their respective HTET certificates dated 02.12.2011 (Annexures P-4 to P-9) and submit that the rejection of their candidature solely on the ground of expiry of seven years' validity was legally unsustainable.
Learned counsel further refers to the NCTE notifications/ guidelines dated 23.08.2010 and 11.02.2011 (Annexures P-16 and P-17), under which the validity of a TET qualifying certificate was subject to a maximum period of seven years. It is submitted that subsequently, vide notification dated 09.06.2021 (Annexure P-18), the NCTE amended Clause 11 of the aforesaid guidelines and extended the validity of the TET qualifying certificate for life, with the amendment expressly stipulating that the same would have effect from 11.02.2011. The amendment further contemplated necessary action by the concerned State Government/State Body for revalidation or fresh issuance of certificates which had lapsed upon completion of seven years.
It is further contended that the aforesaid NCTE amendment dated 09.06.2021 was issued much prior to the advertisements issued by HKRNL in October, 2022. However, despite the same, the candidature of the petitioners was rejected on 03.12.2022 by treating their certificates as having expired after seven years. The petitioners had earlier challenged such rejection by filing CWP-29517-2022, Rakesh Rani and others v. Haryana Kaushal Rozgar Nigam Limited, wherein this Court, vide judgment dated 23.12.2022 (Annexure P-19), disposed of the petition while granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the State authorities, with a direction for consideration and decision by a speaking order.
Learned counsel submits that thereafter, the State Government, after a considerable delay, issued order dated 06.08.2024 (Annexure P-20), extending the validity of STET/HTET certificates for life, but restricted the benefit thereof to advertisements issued after the date of the said order. The said prospective operation of the benefit resulted in a distinction between candidates possessing the same category of HTET/STET certificates, depending only upon the date of the advertisement pursuant to which they sought appointment. It is further submitted that the aforesaid prospective restriction contained in the order dated 06.08.2024 was subsequently considered by this Court in the bunch of petitions led by Mamta Devi v. State of Haryana and others, CWP-25154-2023, and vide judgment dated 12.08.2026 (Annexure P-21). It is contended that this Court, while examining the issue, held that the NCTE notification dated 09.06.2021 extending the validity of TET certificates with effect from 11.02.2011 was applicable to the State of Haryana and that the artificial distinction created on the basis of the date of advertisement was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Learned counsel thus contends that, in view of the subsequent judgment dated 12.08.2026 (Annexure P-21), the rejection of the petitioners' candidature on 03.12.2022 solely on the ground that their HTET/STET certificates had crossed the earlier period of seven years cannot be sustained. It is submitted that the petitioners are not fence-sitters, having earlier approached this Court in CWP-29517-2022 on the very issue. The petitioners, therefore, seek consideration of their candidature in the light of the NCTE notification dated 09.06.2021 (Annexure P-18) and the law laid down by this Court in Mamta Devi (supra), vide judgment dated 12.08.2026 (Annexure P-21).
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he would be satisfied if the present writ petition itself is treated as a comprehensive representation of the petitioners and respondent Nos.2 and 3/ competent authority are directed to consider and decide the same, particularly in the light of the NCTE notification dated 09.06.2021 (Annexure P-18) and the judgment dated 12.08.2026 passed by this Court in Mamta Devi (Annexure P-21), as also the other documents placed on record, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law, within a stipulated period.
Learned State Counsel submits that he has no objection if the present writ petition is treated as a comprehensive representation of the petitioners and respondent No.2 & 3/competent authority is directed to consider and decide the same in the light of aforementioned notification and judgment referred to by learned counsel for the petitioners, within a stipulated period.
In view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 & 3/competent authority to treat the present writ petition as a comprehensive representation of the petitioners and to consider and decide the same, in accordance with law and in the light of aforesaid judgment and notification, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The decision so taken shall be duly communicated to the petitioners forthwith.
Needless to say, if the petitioners is found entitled to the relief sought, the same shall be granted by the respondent/competent authority in accordance with law.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.