AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
This common order shall dispose of the aforementioned civil writ petitions, as they arise from a similar factual matrix. For the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP-24575-2018. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner in CWP-24589-2018, however, the case file has been perused.
The present civil writ petition(s) has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the action of the respondents to the extent for not calling the petitioner(s) for the interview on 26.09.2018 as well as oral rejection of the candidatures of the petitioner(s) for the post of TGT (Science) against the advertisement No.3/2015 dated 28.06.2015 (category No.1) and category No.6 (Annexure P-2). Further, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent-Commission to consider the petitioner(s) eligible for the post of TGT (Science) against the advertisement No.3/2015 dated 28.06.2015 (Category No.1) and Category No.6 (Annexure P-2) and call the petitioner(s) for interview for the post of TGT (Science) in the respective category. Further, directing the respondent-Commission to take the interview of the petitioner(s) provisionally on 26.09.2018 for the post of TGT (Science).
Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) inter alia contends that the petitioner(s) participated in the selection process for the post of TGT (Science) in the SC Category pursuant to Advertisement No.4/2014 dated 08.09.2014. However, the said advertisement was subsequently withdrawn and the respondent-Commission issued Advertisement No.3/2015 inviting applications for 1919 posts of TGT including 895 posts of TGT (Science) as discernible from Annexure P-2.
He further submits that the petitioner(s) has secured 110 marks in her respective category, whereas, the last selected candidate in the said category secured 56 marks. The petitioner(s) possessed the requisite educational qualifications for the post in question on the last date prescribed for submission of applications, except that she did not possess the prescribed combination of three subjects out of the five subjects, namely, (i) Physics, (ii) Chemistry, (iii) Botany, (iv) Geology and (v) Mathematics, in her Bachelor of Science degree. The petitioner(s) obtained her Bachelor of Science degree in the year 2009 from Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and B.Ed. degree in the year 2011 from Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak.
Learned counsel submits that both the aforesaid degrees were acquired prior to the implementation of the Haryana School Education (Group C) Service Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘2012 Rules’), which came into force on 11.04.2012. The petitioner(s) was declared ineligible without assigning any reason. Upon making enquiries, she was orally informed that she did not possess the requisite combination of three subjects out of the five prescribed subjects in B.Sc. in terms of the advertisement (supra). It is contended that the action of the respondent-Commission is arbitrary, unfair and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner(s) had acquired her Bachelor of Science degree prior to the implementation of the 2012 Rules and was eligible under the erstwhile Haryana State Education School Cadre (Group C) Service Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1998 Rules’), which prescribed only a combination of two subjects in B.Sc. It is further submitted that Advertisement No.3/2015 was the first advertisement issued after the framing of the 2012 Rules, as the earlier advertisement issued in the year 2014 had subsequently been withdrawn.
As such, learned counsel contends that the petitioner(s) ought to be considered eligible particularly in view of the fact that she is substantially more meritorious than the last selected candidate in the SC Category. It is further submitted that in the past the respondent-Commission had issued a corrigendum dated 03.07.2012 granting one-time exemption to eligible candidates under the 1998 Rules and, therefore, the petitioner(s) is also entitled to similar relaxation.
Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner(s) on the ground that the issue raised in the present writ petition regarding grant of relaxation has already been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.1509 of 2019 titled as Haryana Staff Selection Commission through its Secretary Vs. Monika Balwaria and others, decided on 19.03.2024, wherein, it was held that petitioners therein who are identically circumstanced had participated in the same selection process, were not entitled to such relaxation. The said judgment was subsequently affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the appeal preferred by the candidates was dismissed.
Learned State counsel further submits that the terms and conditions stipulated in the advertisement are sacrosanct and binding upon both the candidates as well as the recruiting agency. It is not a case where the conditions prescribed in the advertisement are contrary to the applicable statutory rules rather the selection process is required to be conducted in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated in the advertisement.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, it transpires that the petitioner(s) initially participated in the selection process pursuant to Advertisement No.04 of 2014, published on 08.09.2014. However, the said advertisement was subsequently withdrawn, thereafter, the petitioner(s) participated in the selection process pursuant to Advertisement No.03 of 2015, published on 28.06.2015 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner(s) had applied for the post of TGT (Science) in the SC Category. The essential qualification prescribed for the post in question is contained at page No.77 of the paper book and is reproduced hereunder:
“Cat. No. 1 895 post of TGT Science (including 754 post of Backlog) (Re-advertised) E.Q. i. B. Sc. and 2 year Diploma in Elementary Education: OR B. Sc. with at least 50% marks and 1 year Bachelor in Education (B. Ed.); OR B. Sc. with at least 45% marks and 1 year Bachelor in Education (B. Ed.), in accordance with NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in this regard; OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4 year Bachelor in Elementary Education (B. El. Ed): OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4 years B.Sc. Ed.; OR B. Sc. with at least 50% marks and 1 years B. Ed. (Special Education); ii. In case of B.Sc. a combination of at least three subjects out of the following: (1) Physics (2) Chemistry (3) Botany (4) Zoology (5) Mathematics Note: In the case of Hons. Degree, in any of the above mentioned subjects, the candidate must have studied other two subjects in the first and second year of course. iii. In case of B. Ed. Science as a teaching subject from a recognized university.”
Perusal of the aforesaid essential qualification clearly indicates that a candidate is required to possess a combination of three subjects out of the five subjects specified therein. The aforesaid requirement was incorporated in terms of the Haryana School Education (Group C) Service Rules, 2012. Admittedly, the petitioner(s) does not possess a degree satisfying the prescribed requirement of a combination of three subjects out of the five specified subjects, namely, (i) Physics, (ii) Chemistry, (iii) Botany, (iv) Geology and (v) Mathematics. The petitioner(s) possesses a B.Sc. (General) degree which does not satisfy the aforesaid essential qualification prescribed for the post of TGT (Science). Further, the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment in Monika Balwaria’s case (supra), wherein, it has been held that candidates who do not possess the essential qualification prescribed in the advertisement are not entitled to seek relaxation in the said qualification.
This position is further supported by the settled principle that the qualifications prescribed in the recruitment advertisement must be followed as they are. The Court cannot replace or relax the qualification prescribed by the recruiting authority, especially, when the petitioner(s) has not shown that the prescribed qualification is contrary to the applicable Rules or is otherwise unreasonable.
A two-Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra Public Service Commission through its Secretary vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade and others, (2019) 6 SCC 362, speaking through Justice Navin Sinha, has made the following observations in this regard:
“10.The essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the employer to decide. The employer may prescribe additional or desirable qualifications, including any grant of preference. It is the employer who is best suited to decide the requirements a candidate must possess according to the needs of the employer and the nature of work. The court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility, much less can it delve into the issue with regard to desirable qualifications being at par with the essential eligibility by an interpretive re-writing of the advertisement. Questions of equivalence will also fall outside the domain of judicial review. If the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the Court cannot sit in judgment over the same. If there is an ambiguity in the advertisement or it is contrary to any rules or law the matter has to go back to the appointing authority after appropriate orders, to proceed in accordance with law. In no case can the Court, in the garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of the appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer and interpret the conditions of the advertisement contrary to the plain language of the same.”
(emphasis added)
A two Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel and others vs. State of Gujarat and others, (2023)19 SCC 596 has held that subject to the applicable Rules, an advertisement for recruitment binds the parties involved as it has trappings of a statutory prescription. Speaking through Justice M.M. Sundresh, the following was opined:
“23.Another unique feature of the present case is that the Selection Committee has reduced the marks to facilitate the horizontal reservation by treating it as a vertical reservation. Admittedly, the rules do not provide for such reservation to be treated as a vertical one. Likewise, the rules do not fix any cut-off marks. An advertisement, made pursuant to a notification, binds the parties. It has got all the trappings of a statutory prescription, unless it becomes contrary to either a rule or an Act. A change, if any, can only be brought forth by way of an amendment and nothing else. Such an amendment even if it is permissible can be tested on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It cannot be introduced to give an entry to a special reservation, in a case where a right becomes accrued to a candidate, under a policy decision reduced in the form of an advertisement, to be considered for a post in the absence of any eligible candidate from the horizontal category.”
In view of the above discussion and the settled legal position, both the writ petitions are hereby dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
A photo copy of this order be placed on the file of connected case.