2013-01-08

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

1. Civil Writ Petition No.15929 of 2012 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: December 21, 2012

Shivani Gupta and others

…..Petitioners

versus

State of Haryana and others

.....Respondents

2. Letters Patent Appeal No.1715 of 2012 (O&M)

Gaytri

…..Appellant

versus

State of Haryana and others

.....Respondents

3. Civil Writ Petition No.22697 of 2012 (O&M)

Partibha Malik and others

…..Petitioners

versus

State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

4. Civil Writ Petition No.16432 of 2012 (O&M)

Gaurav Kumar and others

…..Petitioners

versus

State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

5. Civil Writ Petition No.17854 of 2012 (O&M)

Renuka Popli and others

…..Petitioners

versus

State of Haryana, etc.

.....RespondentsCWP-15929-2012 - 2 -

6. Civil Writ Petition No.17609 of 2012 (O&M)

Dalip Singh and others

…..Petitioners

versus

State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

7. Civil Writ Petition No.16376 of 2012 (O&M)

Dr.Anita Saxena, etc.

…..Petitioners

versus

State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

8. Civil Writ Petition No.24406 of 2012 (O&M)

Pardeep Singh and others

…..Petitioners

versus

The State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

9. Civil Writ Petition No.22068 of 2012 (O&M)

Bheem Singh and others

…..Petitioners

versus

The State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

10. Civil Writ Petition No.22155 of 2012 (O&M)

Anita Dahiya

…..Petitioner

versus

The State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

11. Civil Writ Petition No.23569 of 2012 (O&M)

Raj Kumar

…..PetitionerCWP-15929-2012 - 3 -

versus

State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

12. Civil Writ Petition No.24196 of 2012 (O&M)

Monika Rani and others

…..Petitioners

versus

The State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

13. Civil Writ Petition No.23839 of 2012 (O&M)

Rakhi Ahlawat and others

…..Petitioners

versus

The State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

14. Civil Writ Petition No.24430 of 2012 (O&M)

Anju and another

…..Petitioners

versus

The State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

15. Civil Writ Petition No.23499 of 2012 (O&M)

Priyanka Kumari and others

…..Petitioners

versus

The State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

16. Civil Writ Petition No.21116 of 2012 (O&M)

Usha Rani and others

…..Petitioners

versusCWP-15929-2012 - 4 -

The State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

17. Civil Writ Petition No.23997 of 2012 (O&M)

Jyoti

…..Petitioner

versus

The State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

18. Civil Writ Petition No.23816 of 2012 (O&M)

Vandhana

…..Petitioner

versus

State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

19. Civil Writ Petition No.20430 of 2012 (O&M)

Sneh Lata

…..Petitioner

versus

The State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

20. Civil Writ Petition No.22876 of 2012 (O&M)

Pardeep Kumar and others

…..Petitioners

versus

State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

21. Civil Writ Petition No.23475 of 2012 (O&M)

Shreepal

…..Petitioner

versus

The State of Haryana, etc.

.....RespondentsCWP-15929-2012 - 5 -

22. Civil Writ Petition No.23218 of 2012 (O&M)

Sunita

…..Petitioner

versus

The State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

23. Civil Writ Petition No.24035 of 2012 (O&M)

Geeta Kumari and others

…..Petitioners

versus

The State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

24. Civil Writ Petition No.24016 of 2012 (O&M)

Rajesh Kumari

…..Petitioner

versus

The State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

25. Civil Writ Petition No.24055 of 2012 (O&M)

Pravin Kumari, etc.

…..Petitioners

versus

The State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

26. Civil Writ Petition No.23589 of 2012 (O&M)

Sukhpal and others

…..Petitioners

versus

State of Haryana, etc.

.....RespondentsCWP-15929-2012 - 6 -

27. Civil Writ Petition No.23813 of 2012 (O&M)

Mahesh Sharma and others

…..Petitioners

versus

State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

28. Civil Writ Petition No.14598 of 2012 (O&M)

Krishan Gogia and others

…..Petitioners

versus

State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

29. Civil Writ Petition No.22094 of 2012 (O&M)

Rajesh Kumar and others

…..Petitioners

versus

The State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

30. Civil Writ Petition No.23111 of 2012 (O&M)

Mehar Chand and others

…..Petitioners

versus

The State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

31. Civil Writ Petition No.23872 of 2012 (O&M)

Suman Lata Devi

…..Petitioner

versus

State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

32. Civil Writ Petition No.22160 of 2012 (O&M)CWP-15929-2012 - 7 -

Shamma Raheja and others

…..Petitioners

versus

The State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

33. Civil Writ Petition No.15492 of 2012 (O&M)

Ashok Kumar

…..Petitioner

versus

The State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

34. Civil Writ Petition No.23522 of 2012 (O&M)

Sangeeta, etc.

…..Petitioners

versus

State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

35. Civil Writ Petition No.21549 of 2012 (O&M)

Hem Lata, etc.

…..Petitioners

versus

State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

36. Civil Writ Petition No.22374 of 2012 (O&M)

Bala Devi and others

…..Petitioners

versus

State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

37. Civil Writ Petition No.22327 of 2012 (O&M)

Deepak Kumar, etc.

…..PetitionersCWP-15929-2012 - 8 -

versus

The State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

38. Civil Writ Petition No.25068 of 2012 (O&M)

Ravinder Kumar

…..Petitioners

versus

The State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

39. Civil Writ Petition No.25111 of 2012 (O&M)

Kamal Singh and others

…..Petitioners

versus

State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

40. Civil Writ Petition No.25014 of 2012 (O&M)

Bhaskar Gaur

…..Petitioner

versus

The State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

41. Civil Writ Petition No.24811 of 2012 (O&M)

Sunil Kumar

…..Petitioner

versus

State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

42. Civil Writ Petition No.24916 of 2012 (O&M)

Suman Lata and others

…..Petitioners

versusCWP-15929-2012 - 9 -

The State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

43. Civil Writ Petition No.24845 of 2012 (O&M)

Shakuntla Devi and others

…..Petitioners

versus

State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

44. Civil Writ Petition No.23889 of 2012 (O&M)

Sunil Yadav

…..Petitioner

versus

State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

45. Civil Writ Petition No.23871 of 2012 (O&M)

Amita

…..Petitioner

versus

State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

46. Civil Writ Petition No.23553 of 2012 (O&M)

Aruna, etc.

…..Petitioners

versus

The State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

47. Civil Writ Petition No.21768 of 2012 (O&M)

Mamta and others

…..Petitioners

versus

The State of Haryana, etc.

.....RespondentsCWP-15929-2012 - 10 -

48. Civil Writ Petition No.23587 of 2012 (O&M)

Parkash, etc.

…..Petitioners

versus

State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

49. Civil Writ Petition No.23890 of 2012 (O&M)

Ram Sawrup and others

…..Petitioners

versus

State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

50. Civil Writ Petition No.22624 of 2012 (O&M)

Sushma Rani and others

…..Petitioners

versus

The State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

51. Civil Writ Petition No.23596 of 2012 (O&M)

Smt.Seema

…..Petitioner

versus

State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

52. Civil Writ Petition No.23886 of 2012 (O&M)

Nirmala and others

…..Petitioners

versus

State of Haryana, etc.

.....RespondentsCWP-15929-2012 - 11 -

53. Civil Writ Petition No.25284 of 2012 (O&M)

Neelam and others

…..Petitioners

versus

The State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

54. Civil Writ Petition No.24140 of 2012 (O&M)

Jai Parkash and others

…..Petitioners

versus

The State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

55. Civil Writ Petition No.24236 of 2012 (O&M)

Nupur and others

…..Petitioners

versus

The State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

56. Civil Writ Petition No.21548 of 2012 (O&M)

Mamta Rani and others

…..Petitioners

versus

The State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

57. Civil Writ Petition No.23588 of 2012 (O&M)

Arun and others

…..Petitioners

versus

State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

58. Civil Writ Petition No.24303 of 2012 (O&M)CWP-15929-2012 - 12 -

Dev Kumar Sharma and others

…..Petitioners

versus

State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

59. Civil Writ Petition No.25133 of 2012 (O&M)

Randhir Singh and others

…..Petitioners

versus

State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

60. Civil Writ Petition No.23464 of 2012 (O&M)

Arvind

…..Petitioner

versus

The State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

61. Civil Writ Petition No.24325 of 2012 (O&M)

Gurinder Kaur

…..Petitioner

versus

State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

62. Civil Writ Petition No.24205 of 2012 (O&M)

Sudesh

…..Petitioners

versus

The State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

63. Civil Writ Petition No.23853 of 2012 (O&M)

Maya Devi, etc.

…..PetitionersCWP-15929-2012 - 13 -

versus

State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

64. Civil Writ Petition No.23840 of 2012 (O&M)

Anita Yadav

…..Petitioner

versus

State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

65. Civil Writ Petition No.23535 of 2012 (O&M)

Saroj Devi

…..Petitioner

versus

State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

66. Civil Writ Petition No.22432 of 2012 (O&M)

Tripti Gupta and others

…..Petitioners

versus

The State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

67. Civil Writ Petition No.22612 of 2012 (O&M)

Sarita and others

…..Petitioners

versus

The State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

68. Civil Writ Petition No.23572 of 2012 (O&M)

Sudesh Kumari, etc.

…..Petitioners

versusCWP-15929-2012 - 14 -

State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

69. Civil Writ Petition No.23560 of 2012 (O&M)

Anju

…..Petitioner

versus

The State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

70. Civil Writ Petition No.24114 of 2012 (O&M)

Sudesh Kumari, etc.

…..Petitioners

versus

The State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

71. Civil Writ Petition No.24176 of 2012 (O&M)

Inderjeet Yadav and others

…..Petitioners

versus

The State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

72. Civil Writ Petition No.23001 of 2012 (O&M)

Rajender Kumar

…..Petitioner

versus

State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

73. Civil Writ Petition No.21137 of 2012 (O&M)

Santosh Rani

…..Petitioner

versus

State of Haryana, etc.

.....RespondentsCWP-15929-2012 - 15 -

74. Civil Writ Petition No.25129 of 2012 (O&M)

Vijay Kumar

…..Petitioner

versus

State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

75. Civil Writ Petition No.25213 of 2012 (O&M)

Meenu Rani and others

…..Petitioners

versus

State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

76. Civil Writ Petition No.24450 of 2012 (O&M)

Pawan, etc.

…..Petitioners

versus

State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

77. Civil Writ Petition No.25476 of 2012 (O&M)

Suman

…..Petitioner

versus

State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

78. Civil Writ Petition No.24146 of 2012 (O&M)

Anju Devi

…..Petitioner

versus

The State of Haryana, etc.

.....RespondentsCWP-15929-2012 - 16 -

79. Civil Writ Petition No.24429 of 2012 (O&M)

Yogesh Kumar

…..Petitioner

versus

The State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

80. Civil Writ Petition No.25404 of 2012 (O&M)

Manoj Kumar Sharma

…..Petitioner

versus

The State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

81. Civil Writ Petition No.25366 of 2012 (O&M)

Suman Bala, etc.

…..Petitioners

versus

State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

82. Civil Writ Petition No.25398 of 2012 (O&M)

Geeta Devi

…..Petitioner

versus

The State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

83. Civil Writ Petition No.22701 of 2012 (O&M)

Ramesh Kumar and others

…..Petitioners

versus

State of Haryana, etc.

.....RespondentsCWP-15929-2012 - 17 -

84. Civil Writ Petition No.22698 of 2012 (O&M)

Suchitra

…..Petitioner

versus

The State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

85. Civil Writ Petition No.22707 of 2012 (O&M)

Anuranjnee Jaiswal and others

…..Petitioners

versus

State of Haryana, etc.

.....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI, CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, JUDGE

Present:  Mr.Anupam Gupta, Senior Advocate with

Mr.Angel Sharma, Advocate;

Mr.Jagbir Malik, Mr.Jasbir Mor, Mr.A.K. Bura,

Satbir Gill, Ravi Partap Singh, J.P.Sharma,

Rajesh Lamba, Harish Nain, H.N.Sahu,

Saurabh Dalal, S.S.Ghanghas, Vijay Pal,

Mohit Garg, Madan Pal, Suresh Ahlawat,

Anand Bhardwaj, J.P.Sharma, Narinder

Kumar Sharma, Vivek Goyal, Sandeep

Panwar, P.S.Khurana, Gaurav Jindal, DPS

Bajwa, Ashok Kaushik, M.S.Randhawa,

S.P.Chahar, Parveen Kumar Rohilla,

B.S.Mittal, Vivek Khatri, Rajbir Sehrawat,

Sanjiv Gupta, B.S.Dhull, Satish Chaudhary,

Jitender S.Chahal, R.S. Dhull, S.K.Yadav,

R.K.Hooda, Rajesh Duhan, Anurag Goyal,

K.S. Dadwal, Surinder Dagar, Jainainder

Saini, Dr.Suresh Kumar Redhu, Mr.H.N.

Khanduja, Advocates for the petitionersCWP-15929-2012 - 18 -

Mr.G.K. Chatrath, Senior Advocate with

Ms.Alka Chatrath, Advocate for appellant in LPA-1715-2012

Mr.B.S. Rana, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana

..

A.K. SIKRI, C.J.:

Introductory remarks

1. The genesis of present dispute, subject matter of these writ

petitions, can be traced to November-2005 when due to shortage of

teachers, the District Education Officers were prompted by the State of

Haryana to fill up the vacancies of Lecturers, Masters and C&V Teachers

by engaging the Guest Faculty Teachers (GFTs) against the sanctioned

posts.  These GFTs were initially engaged on different dates in 2005

and were to continue up to 31.3.2006. However, as would be noted in

detail at the appropriate stage, most of these GFTs continued beyond

that period and are in service even now.  In the interregnum, legal

battles ensued in various forms  which were taken  up to the Supreme

Court. The outcome of the various cases was that GFTs are not to be

regularized only because of their length of service; no fresh

appointments of GFTs would be made from 1.4.2012 and exercise to

complete the process of regular selection must be completed within the

specified time.

2. The State of Haryana has now taken steps for filling the posts

of Teachers in various disciplines on regular basis.  Requisition is sent to

the Haryana School Teachers Selection Board (hereinafter to be referred

to as ‘the Selection Board’) for this purpose.  Before doing  so, new

statutory  Rules, namely, ‘The Haryana State Education  School Cadre

(Group-B) Service Rules, 2012 (hereafter to be referred to as ‘Rules of

2012’) have been promulgated.   Before that, the Rules known as ‘The CWP-15929-2012 - 19 -

Haryana State Education Lecturer School Cadre (Group-C) Service

Rules, 1998 (for short, ‘Rules of 1998’) were in vogue.

3. From the perusal of Appendix ‘B’ of Rules of 1998, it is

clear that the basic qualification required for the post of Lecturer was

MA in the relevant subject with Matric and a certificate of having

qualified the School Teachers Eligibility Test (STET)  (which was added

in 2008)  but now by way of the new Rules, an amendment has been

made by inserting the qualification of Post Graduation in the relevant

subject along with B.Ed. and having passed the STET.  Notwithstanding

this stipulation of basic essential qualifications in the Rules, at the end

of Appendix ‘B’, Note (i) is given whereby exemption from passing

STET/Haryana Teachers Eligibility Test (HTET) is given to the

candidates who have worked as Teachers for a minimum period of four

years on the date of enforcement of these Rules.

4. Advertisement  has been  issued whereby approximately

14,000 posts of PGT Teachers in different subjects  are advertised. The

qualifications common to all posts  specified are:  (a) Matric with

Hindi/Sanskrit or 10+2/B.A./M.A. with Hindi as one of the subject and

(b) Certificate of having qualified HTET/STET.  Further under Note-2,

one time exemption of HTET/STET has been granted to the candidates

who have worked for minimum four years till 11.4.2012 in privately

managed government aided, recognized and government schools.  It is

further provided that this relaxation is only one time and candidates will

have to qualify STET/HTET not later than 1.4.2015, otherwise their

services will be terminated automatically.CWP-15929-2012 - 20 -

5. After some time, another notification was issued whereby

the Rules of 2012 were amended by inserting a transitional provision

under Rule 19-A whereby it is provided, as one time measure, that the

candidates whosoever were qualified under the Rules of 1998 shall also

be eligible for recruitment and they will have to qualify HTET and B.Ed.

by 1.4.2015. Thereafter, a corrigendum dated 3.7.2012 was issued

whereby under transitional provision the candidates who were eligible

under the Rules of 1998  were also  made  eligible, as a one time

measure, and further one time exemption is given to the candidates,

who are having four years experience till 11.4.2012 in addition to being

in position on the date of applying for the said post, to acquire

qualifications of passing HTET/STET and B.Ed.

6. In most of these petitions, the petitioners herein are those

candidates who fulfill the essential qualifications laid down in the Rules

of 2012.  They have applied for the posts of PGT teachers and are

ready to participate in the selection process which is underway.

However, they are agitated against Note (i) in the Rules of 2012, which

gives exemption  from passing School Teachers Eligibility Test

(STET)/Haryana Teachers Eligibility Test  (HTET) to those candidates

who have worked as Teacher for a minimum period of four years on the

date of enforcement of these rules, i.e., as on 11.4.2012.   They  also

feel aggrieved by the further amendment on 2.7.2012 relaxing the

qualification, even of B.Ed. for such Teachers. Their  nurture an

apprehension that all this is done to accommodate and select these

GFTs which is the  manifest intention of the government, adequately

demonstrated in the previous litigations wherein over-jealous attempts

were made  to accord these GFTs status of regular Teachers. It is for CWP-15929-2012 - 21 -

this reason, challenging these amendments, these writ petitions are

preferred.

7. To understand the contours of grievances as well as

controversy, we reproduce herein below the prayer  made in CWP

No.15929 of 2012:

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that:-

i) records of the case may be called for;

ii) filing of the certified copies of the Annexures may

kindly be dispensed with and also the petitioner may

kindly be exempted from filing fair typed copies of the

Annexures and allowed to place on record photo copies

of the same;

iii) services of advance notices upon the respondents be

dispensed with;

iv) a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued

quashing the impugned amendment in Note(i),

Appendix ‘B’ of the Haryana State Education  School

Cadre (Group B) Service (Second Amendment) Rules,

2012 and Mewat District School Education (Group B)

Service (Second Amendment) Rules, 2012 i.e.

Annexures P-19 & P-19A respectively, exempting the

teachers with experience of four years from passing

STET/HTET and B.Ed. and in consequence column c

(i) of the Corrigendum issued by the Respondent Board

dated 03.07.2012 (Annexure P-20);

v) issue any other Writ, Order or Direction which  this

Hon’ble Court may deem appropriate and fit in the

peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

vi) cost of the petition be awarded to the petitioners;”

(Similar prayers are made in other writ petitions as well)

It would be easier to comprehend the contentions of the petitioners, if we

have the detailed background facts stating as to how the GFTs were

inducted in the first instance and how they have been continuing and also

the nature of litigation and orders passed from time to time by this Court

as well as the Supreme Court.  Therefore, we proceed to record the same

in seriatim hereinbelow:CWP-15929-2012 - 22 -

History of Previous Litigations:

8. In 2005, it was felt that there was a shortage of approximately

13,000 teaching staff in the government teaching institutions in the State

of Haryana.  As this shortage was adversely affecting the imparting of

education in State-run educational institutions, State of Haryana, vide

instructions dated 29.11.2005, issued directive to all the District Education

Officers to fill up the vacancies of Lecturers.  The District Education Officers

were to assess the shortfall of teachers in the State of Haryana keeping in

view the sanctioned posts of teachers and to fill up those vacancies in the

cadre of Lecturer, Master and C&V Teacher by engaging the GFTs against

the sanctioned posts.  As per these instructions, the power to engage these

GFTs was delegated to the Principals/Headmasters/DDOs. It was also

provided that if there is requirement of teachers on the basis of vacancies

and workload, the Principals/Headmasters/DDOs will display the

requirement on a board at the main gate of the institution.  Not only this, it

was also provided that these GFTs shall be engaged in a particular school of

the same village/town and if the teachers from the same village/town are

not available, then candidates belonging to same block or same district

would be  considered. The exact provisions of the instructions dated

29.11.2005 are reproduce hereinbelow:-

“PROCEDURE:

I.  The Head of Institutions would engage teachers on

Guest Faculty on the basis of vacancies and the

workload.

II.  The Principal/Headmaster/DDO after assessing the

requirement will display the requirement on  a board

displayed at the Main Gate of the Institution. In case of

schools having post of Principal or Headmaster vacant,

the DDO/BEO would assess the requirement and will

display the same. BEO would assess the requirement

and will display the same.  BEO will also assess the

requirement of elementary school teacher. CWP-15929-2012 - 23 -

III.  The applications should be submitted by the applicants

offering their services  for engaging  as Guest Faculty

for a specific period, from the date of engagement till

31.03.2006 only.

IV.  The Principal/Headmaster/DDO will process all the

application received.  If the Principal/Headmaster/

DDO receives applications more than the vacancies for

that academic session, then he/she  shall give

preference to the applicants having higher academic

merit.  First priority for engaging Guest Faculty in a

particular school should be to a candidate of same

village/town.  The merit be made of such candidates.

If required candidate of same village/town is not

available, then merit be made of candidates belonging

to same block.  Second priority for engaging Guest

Faculty should be from amongst candidates belonging

to the block.  Third priority should be of candidates

belonging to same district.

V.  As and when  a regular appointee is posted to that

school (whether after regular direct recruitment or

after promotion or after adjustment or after transfer),

the Head of the institution will dispense with the

services of engaged teachers on Guest Faculty of that

category of post.  It is not an appointment but job

work offer on period basis on prescribed rates. This is

with a view to take care of studies of students where

regular teachers are not available in the school.”

Large number of GFTs were engaged on the lines given in the aforesaid

instructions dated 29.11.2005, as amended on 16.12.2005.  As per these

instructions, the GFTs were to continue only up to 31.3.2006.  When this

date was closing in, fearing their disengagement, large number of such

GFTs approached this Court by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India (CWP-2743-2006, titled as  Balraj Singh and others

vs.  State of Haryana and others). These GFTs pleaded that they should be

allowed to continue till regular  employees  join the services. They also

demanded regular pay scale.   The writ petition was contested by the

respondent-State and a categoric reply was filed wherein it was submitted

that no criteria for selection/interviews of the  GFTs was ever framed and

the sphere of selection of GFTs was very limited and the applications were CWP-15929-2012 - 24 -

invited to teach  for  certain period on fixed remuneration.  It was also

submitted by the respondent-State that because of this, a large number of

meritorious candidates, who  were waiting for the regular process to be

initiated, did not apply, as these GFTs were selected only from certain

blocks/areas without competing with the best of talent available.  It was

also submitted by the State that if the petitioners therein are allowed to

continue on the posts, then probably they would claim regularization after

some time and right of meritorious candidates would be infringed. During

the course of hearing, the learned State counsel informed the Court that a

requisition has already been sent to the Haryana Staff Selection

Commission and approximately 9000 vacancies  would  be filled up in

furtherance to the aforesaid requisition.  The Division Bench disposed of the

writ petition  vide orders dated 20.3.2006 with directions to continue with

the GFTs till regular recruitments are made and it was also observed that

they are not entitled to regular pay scale.

9. The State of Haryana, initially, was not satisfied with the

aforesaid judgment giving directions to continue these GFTs till regular

recruitments are made.  It, accordingly, challenged the orders dated

20.3.2006 by filing Special Leave Petitions (SLPs).  However, these  SLPs

were dismissed on 10.2.2012 as not pressed. The GFTs were, thus, allowed

to continue and work.

10. In the year 2007, another attempt was made by these GFTs to

allow them to continue till regular appointments are made and they also

prayed that directions may be issued not to discontinue GFTs. This was

done in the case of  Baldev Singh and others  vs.   State of Haryana and

others, (CWP 387 of 2007). State of Haryana again contested this petition

taking a very categorical stand that since these GFTs were recruited to CWP-15929-2012 - 25 -

meet out the exigencies in various schools/colleges, they had no right to

continue and it was open to the State to terminate their services any time

without any notice or assigning any reason.  It was stressed that their

appointment letters stipulated such terms and conditions and with open

eyes they had joined the services, accepting these terms and conditions

with their own free will and volition and it was not permissible for them now

to raise any objection to the contrary. This writ petition of the GFTs was

dismissed by this Court vide orders dated 30.8.2007. Relevant portion of

the said judgment is extracted below:

“After hearing  counsel for the parties, we are of the

considered view that the Policy of appointing Teachers

as Guest Faculty Teachers was introduced by the State

Government so as to provide uninterrupted education

to the students.  As the Education  Department is a

huge Department in which posts of Lecturers remain

vacant due to death,  retirement, resignation,

promotion, etc. of Teachers, therefore, in order to

ensure that studies of the students do not suffer hence,

the State Government decided to engage Lecturers as

Guest Faculty. Accordingly, the Principals were

directed to appoint Lecturers on period basis on a

fixed remuneration for a fixed period upto 31.3.2007.

The petitioners themselves requested that they be

engaged for a specified period on a fixed remuneration

and hence now they cannot claim that they should be

allowed to remain in service till regular appointments

are made.  A perusal of the Policy shows that

appointment of Guest Faculty Teachers  was a job

work on period basis at prescribed rates and hence, no

Guest Faculty Teacher is entitled to remain on the

post beyond the period for which he has been engaged.

The petitioners were engaged as Guest Faculty

Teacher by the Principal of the college concerned, who

otherwise, is not the competent authority to make

appointment under the Rules.

Apart from the above, the petitioners were engaged

from certain pocket areas only i.e., from their village or

from the block and they never competed with the best

of talent available.  The reservation policy was also not

followed.  Essentially the petitioners were engaged on

contract basis and there was no obligation on  either CWP-15929-2012 - 26 -

side to continue that contract beyond the period for

which the Guest Faculty Teachers/Lecturers were

appointed.

It is, thus, clear  that the claim of the petitioners for

quashing the condition of limiting the period of their

appointment does not suffer from any illegality or

irregularity which may warrant interference of this

Court.  In the Constitutional Bench judgement in

Secretary, State of Karnataka & others vs.  Umadevi &

others, (2006) 4 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

has allowed the State to engage employees on contract

basis by taking into account the requirement of work.

The petitioners can neither impost themselves upon

the respondents nor they can be allowed to continue

beyond the period for which they were engaged as

Guest Faculty Teachers.  The petitioners also cannot

be allowed to continue till regular appointments are

made, as Guest Faculty Teachers are appointed only

to tide over the situations like death, retirement,

resignation, promotion, etc.

In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ

petition and the same is dismissed.”

11. Notwithstanding the aforesaid judgment wherein the position

taken by the State of Haryana was accepted, the Commissioner and

Directorate of School Education issued letter dated 2.12.2008 stipulating

therein the guidelines for temporary adjustment of displaced Guest

Teachers.  Even the imposition of complete ban on engagement of fresh

Guest Teachers was ordered to be reconsidered after their displacement

due to arrival of regular incumbents.  It is the contention of the petitioners

herein that from now onwards a deliberate effort was made by the

Government to accommodate these GFTs within Education Department

without giving any further opportunity of employment to any of the

unemployed youth like the petitioners.

12. The respondents, thereafter, issued  instructions on 2.3.2009

whereby terms and conditions of these GFTs were ordered to be changed

as contractual employees, that too for one year in spite of their earlier CWP-15929-2012 - 27 -

engagement on ‘per day per person’ basis.  Not only this, it was also

decided  that  GFTs will be given exemption from passing the STET and

would also be accorded age relaxation for upper age limit.  To top it all,

they were even to be provided additional weightage for being GFTs by

giving up to 24 marks on this count.  Issuance of these instructions dated

2.3.2009 started another round of litigation.  A batch of writ petitions came

to be filed with leading case CWP-13045-2009 titled as Ashok Kumar  vs.

The  State of Haryana and others.  This culminated in judgment dated

6.4.2010 whereby making scathing remarks on the softening of attitude of

the State of Haryana qua these GFTs, the aforesaid relaxation given by the

State in the communication dated 2.3.2009 was held to be bad in law,

observing that there was no occasion for the State to relax the condition of

STET or giving any weightage up to 24 marks towards experience gained

by them as GFTs.  In the process, the Court observed:

“31. A reading of orders passed by this Court, as referred to

above, makes it very clear that entry of guest faculty teachers

was de-hors the regular selection process. It was limited to

few candidates. All eligible candidates were not allowed to

compete for those posts. The nature of service was

contractual. However, despite knowing terms and conditions of

their appointment, the guest faculty teachers dragged the

State of Haryana into avoidable litigation and on account of

their action, even the process of selection of regular teachers

was delayed. If at this stage, relaxation in age, exemption from

passing STET and weightage upto 24 marks towards

experience gained as guest faculty teachers is given to them,

it would amount to appointing those very candidates in regular

service, who, in the first instance, entered it through a

selection process which was not regular and open to all.

Obviously, it would mean a grave discrimination to the other

more deserving candidates. Most of the guest faculty teachers

have service of more than two years to their credit, they are

sure to get 24 marks at the time of selection and by that

process they are bound to exclude others who are more

meritorious from entering in service. The grant of 24 marks in

the marks obtained by all the candidates, including the guest

faculty teachers, as per criteria, in a fiercely competitive field

with thousands of applicants would virtually rule out non guest CWP-15929-2012 - 28 -

faculty candidates. This virtually amounts to regularization of

guest faculty teachers in service, which was deprecated and

proscribed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi’s case

(supra), wherein it was held that persons, who got employment

without following a regular procedure and at times enter

through backdoor are not entitled to get permanence in

service.

xxx xxx xxx xxx

34. In the present case, if apart from relaxation in age,

exemption from passing STET and weightage upto 24 marks

towards experience gained as guest faculty teachers is given to

the guest faculty teachers, then it would virtually amount to

their regularization in service, that too, without following the

proper procedure for selection and contrary to the

pronouncement made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uma

Devi’s case (supra).

xxx xxx xxx xxx

40. This Court is further of the view that there is no occasion

for the State to relax conditions of passing the STET, as has

been done in the case of guest faculty teachers. The said

qualification was incorporated in the Rules by making an

amendment in the year 2008. All other candidates, except the

guest faculty teachers, are required to pass that Test,

otherwise, they are not eligible to compete for the posts in

question. If the guest faculty teachers without passing STET,

are taken in service, it would amount to giving benefit to the

candidates lower in merit. Teachers are the builders of the

nation and if the foundation is weak, it is not expected that

the nation will progress in the right direction. No reason has

been given as to why the guest faculty teachers could not and

should not have passed the test, after the date, when it was

incorporated as a qualification in the Rules in the year 2008.”

The aforesaid judgment amply demonstrates the reasons for quashing the

provisions of relaxation given to GFTs vide instructions dated 2.3.2009, as

under:-

(a) These GFTs were given appointment de hors the

regular selection process, that is, no regular selection

process was undertaken while giving them the

appointment;

(b) Neither all eligible candidates were allowed to compete

nor all eligible candidates were considered.  It was

limited to few candidates; CWP-15929-2012 - 29 -

(c) The nature of engagement was contractual and terms

and conditions of their appointment clearly specify that

it will not bestow any right upon them. It was also

made clear that it was a stop-gap arrangement pending

selection of regular teachers;

(d) Any such instructions granting relaxation in age,

exemption from passing STET and awarding 24 marks

towards experience gained as Guest Faculty amounted

to providing back-door entry to these GFTs. This

would mean a grave discrimination to other more

deserving candidates in a fiercely competitive field in

which thousand of these GFTs would virtually rule out

non-Guest Faculty candidates. Even otherwise, there

was no occasion to relax the condition of passing

STET, which was the essential qualification

incorporated in 2008 and could be relaxed for genuine

reasons, but no such reasons were forthcoming;

13. In the passing, the Division Bench also made following

significant observations:-

“43. In view of aforesaid discussion, it is evident that the

grant of exemption from passing the STET and weightage of

upto 24 marks towards experience to the guest faculty

teachers is not justified and runs contrary to the provisions of

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court in State of Jharkhand and others v. Bijay

Kumar and others, AIR 2008 Supreme Court 1446, while

dealing with a similar controversy, observed that

“constitutional guarantee of equality as envisaged under

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India must be

protected. While passing one order or the other, we should

not forget the interest of those who are not before us, citizens

have human right of development and offer of appointment on

such posts should be directed to be made only on merit.”

44. There are always more aspirants in the field of public

employment with each passing year. Thousands of candidates

may have acquired similar or higher qualifications after the

date, when guest faculty teachers were taken in service in the

year 2005-2006. Those who may have become eligible now,

are not likely to be successful, if exemption from passing STET

and award of upto 24 marks towards experience upheld in

favour of guest faculty teachers. Constitutional guarantee of

equal opportunity in public service, as envisaged under

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution has to be protected. All

the applicants have equal right of being considered for

selection and the posts are supposed to be filled up only by

selecting the meritorious candidates.”CWP-15929-2012 - 30 -

14. The State of Haryana accepted the aforesaid verdict of this

Court.  However, GFTs, who were affected thereby filed Special Leave

Petitions in the apex Court with leading case SLP No.24882 of 2010 titled

as Mohinder Kumar and others  vs.  State of Haryana, which was dismissed

by the Supreme Court with following reasons in support:

“It is not in dispute that the essential qualifications

enumerated in the advertisement issued by the Commission

were in consonance with the requirement of  the Rules   as

amended     vide Notification dated 24.7.2008. In other words,

the certificate of having qualified School Teacher's Eligibility

Test was an integral part of  the essential qualifications. Rule

17 of the Rules does empower the State Government to relax

any of the provisions of the Rules with respect to any class or

category of persons but the exercise of power under that rule

is hedged with the condition that while granting relaxation, the

State Government must record reasons for doing so. Before

the High Court, the State Government did not produce any

document to show that it had exercised power under Rule 17

and passed a  reasoned  order for  granting exemption to  the

Teachers  engaged  as the Guest Faculty from the requirement

of having qualified STET. Even before this Court, no such

document has been produced. Therefore, the High Court was

right in taking the view that the essential qualification

prescribed under the rules could not have been relaxed by

issuing a corrigendum in the advertisement issued by the

Commission.

Shri    P.P. Rao,  learned  senior   counsel   relied

upon  the judgment in K.V. Rajalakshmiah Setty and another

vs. State of Mysore and another (1967) 2 SCR 70 to show that

one time ad hoc concession given to teachers could be treated

as legitimate and the exercise of power by the Government

does not result in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the

Constitution.

We have carefully gone through the judgment but do

not find any proposition of legality that a qualification

prescribed under the rules framed under Article 309 of the

Constitution can be relaxed simply by issuing a corrigendum in

the advertisement issued by  the Commission. Insofar as the

grant of weightage of additional marks is concerned, we are in

complete agreement with the High Court that this was an

indirect methodology adopted by the State to ensure

regularisation of the Guest Faculty Teachers who had earlier

failed to    convince   the   High   Court    to  issue   a

mandamus   to   the   State Government to frame a policy for

regularisation of their services. CWP-15929-2012 - 31 -

In the result, the special leave petitions are

dismissed.”

15. While the aforesaid events were taking place, side by side, a

PIL was also filed for quashing of the action of the State of Haryana by

which tenure of the GFTs was extended for a further period of one year.

Prayer was also made in the said PIL seeking directions to the Government

of Haryana to fill up the vacant posts of Teachers/Lecturers on regular basis

through a process provided in the  Constitution Scheme which was the

subject matter of CWP-6090-2010 entitled:  Tilak Raj  vs.   State of

Haryana. This writ petition was disposed of vide judgment dated 30.3.2011

whereby  important observations were made about the balance between

the need for education and the need for upholding the fundamental rights

of a large section  of the citizens under Articles 14 and 16 of the

Constitution of India and further it was also observed that the Court cannot

overlook the manner in which GFTs have entered into service and how they

have continued and how a large number of eligible candidates are still

waiting for regular appointments and finally directions were given to extend

the tenure of the  GFTs up to 31.3.2012 with specific observation that on

the expiry of the said date, the services of the GFTs shall be understood to

have lapsed and it will not be open for the State to continue any such GFTs

in service.  However, after nine months, i.e., on 16.12.2011, an application

was filed by the State seeking extension of time granted by this Court for

compliance of the order dated 30.3.2011.  In this application, orders dated

15.3.2012 were passed dismissing the same, inter alia, observing that the

State had failed to make out any justifiable case for extension and, in any

case, finality had to be achieved in the selection process of regular teachers

by making an extra effort, as the game of extension serves nobody’s cause

in long run.  CWP-15929-2012 - 32 -

16. Against this order, refusing to extend time, Special Leave

Petition was filed, which was decided on 30.3.2012 whereby it was directed

that no fresh appointments of  GFTs will be made from 01.04.2012 and

exercise to complete the process of selection must be completed within the

time specified in the Scheme and it was also observed that no further

extension or deviation therefrom will be permitted.  Finally, it was also

observed that the recruitment of teachers on regular basis shall not be

supplemented or replaced by this procedure of appointing the GFTs. For the

sake of convenience, the pertinent observations given by the Supreme

Court are as under:-

“7. Having heard the learned Attorney General for India,

Mr. Subramanium and Mr.Vishwanathan, senior advocates, for

the parties and also keeping in mind the submissions made by

Mr.Vishwanathan, that the intention of the Division Bench of

the High Court was that no further appointments of ‘Guest

Teachers’ should be made after Ist April, 2012, and that the

vacancies should be filled up by posting and reposting

SLP(C)…CC5956-5957/12 etc. in the  different institutions,

we feel the two things should really be kept separate,

notwithstanding the apprehension voiced by Mr.

Vishwanathan, that this court lead to continuance of

appointment of ‘Guest Teachers’.

8. We make it very clear that as directed by the Division

Bench of the High Court, no fresh appointments of ‘Guest

Teachers’ will be made from Ist April, 2012.  However, since

students also cannot be made to suffer on account of the delay

in the appointment of regular teachers, we direct that the

exercise indicated in the scheme, must be completed within

the time specified in the scheme and no further extension or

deviation therefrom will be permitted.

9. Till then, the ‘Guest Teachers’ may be allowed to

continue to function, as they have been doing so far.

10. We once again reiterate that the recruitment of

teachers on the regular basis shall not be supplemented or

replaced by this procedure of appointing ‘Guest Teachers’ for

the sake of convenience.”CWP-15929-2012 - 33 -

Impugned Provisions:

17. As pointed out above, thereafter the State promulgated Rules

of 2012 and also came out with the first amendment as well as second

amendment in the said rules.  As per Rules of 2012, essential qualification

for PGT Teacher is Post-Graduation in the relevant subject along with B.Ed.

and also having passed the STET/HTET.  However, in these very rules,

after stating the aforesaid basic essential qualifications, at the end of

Appendix-B, a note is given whereby those Teachers who have worked for

a minimum period of four years on the date of enforcement of these rules,

i.e., 11.4.2012, they have been exempted to clear qualification of passing

STET as a one-time measure with the condition that they will have to

qualify HTET by not later than April 01, 2015.  This eligibility condition for

PGT with aforesaid note is as under:

“Appendix-B

PGT English:

(i) M.A. English with at least 50% marks and B.Ed. from

recognized University, AND

(ii) Matric with Hindi/Sanskrit or 10+2/B.A./M.A. with

Hindi as one of the subject, AND

(iii) Certificate of having qualified Haryana Teacher

Eligibility Test (HTET)/School Teachers Eligibility

Test (STET).

(iv) Consistent good academic record.

Note:(i)That in case of different recruitment, the teachers

working in privately managed Government aided,

recognized and Government schools, are exempted

to acquire qualifications of passing HTET as

described in column No.1, if they have worked as a

teacher for a minimum period of four years on the

date of enforcement of these rules.  However, said

exemption is as a one time measure and the said

category of teachers on the their appointment shall

have to qualify HTET by not later than Ist April,

2015; otherwise their appointment shall stand CWP-15929-2012 - 34 -

terminated automatically without giving any further

notice.

(ii) A person who has passed STET/HTET without the

qualification of B.Ed. before the notification of these

rules, shall be considered eligible for the post of PGT

in case of direct recruitment.

(iii) In case of direct recruitment, consistent good academic

record means that out of the lower qualification i.e.

Matric/10+2/Graduation than the requisite minimum

qualification, one need secure at least 50% in two lower

exams and 45% in third lower exam.  If there is only two

lower exams, then one must secure at least 50% in one

exam and 45% in another.

(iv) Professional Training Diploma or Certificate awarded

by any State Board or University other than Haryana

Education Department will be recognized only if this

Degree or Diploma or Certificate has been recognized

by the Haryana Government.

(v) Relaxation up to 5% in the qualifying marks shall be

allowed to the candidates belonging to Scheduled

Castes (SC) and differently aided candidates.”

On this basis, advertisement was issued on 6.6.2012  whereby

approximately 14,000 posts of PGT Teachers in different subjects have

been advertised. After  issuance of the aforesaid advertisement, a

notification was again issued dated 2.7.2012 whereby the Rules of 2012

were amended by inserting a transitional provision under Rule 19-A

whereby it is provided that the candidates whosoever were qualified under

the Rules of 1998 shall also be eligible for recruitment as one time measure

and they will have to qualify HTET and B.Ed. by 1.4.2015 and if they fail to

do so, the appointments shall stand terminated automatically.  Further,

Note (i) of Appendix ‘B’ of Rules of 2012 is also substituted by saying that

in case of direct recruitment, the teachers working in the privately

managed Government aided, recognized and Government schools are

exempted from having qualifications of HTET/STET and B.Ed. if they have CWP-15929-2012 - 35 -

worked as a teacher for a minimum period of 4 years on the date of

enforcement of these Rules. The exact amendment in Note (i) is as under:-

“3. In the said rules, in Appendix B, for note (i) the

following note shall be substituted, namely: -

(i) That in case of direct recruitment, the teachers

working in privately managed Government aided,

recognized and Government schools, are exempted

from having qualifications of Haryana teachers

Eligibility Test or School Teachers  Eligibility Test and

B.Ed. as described in column 3, if they have worked as

a teacher for a minimum period of four years on the

date of enforcement of these rules.”

For such teachers, who have four years’ teaching experience and these

certainly include these GFTs, one time relaxation from passing STET/HTET

as well as qualification of B.Ed. is relaxed as one-time measure. The effect

is that these GFTs or other Teachers, who are not possessing HTET

Certificate or B.Ed. Certificate, are made eligible to compete along with

others like the petitioners in these writ petitions.

The Challenge:

18. According to petitioners, these amendments are deliberately

made with sole motive to accommodate GFTs by giving them the regular

appointment.  In nutshell, the case of the petitioners is that though in the

beginning the Government was opposed to the claim of these GFTs, but

after 2008 there was change of mind and there have been repeated

attempts on the part of the State to see that these GFTs somehow continue

and are given appointment on regular basis.  However, even when such

demands failed on the anvil of judicial scrutiny, to wriggle out of the

mandate given by this Court and the Supreme Court, the government has

come out with the exemption clauses waiving the essential conditions for

appointment of these Teachers. With the result, these GFTs, who are

otherwise not eligible for consideration to the posts of PGTs, will now be CWP-15929-2012 - 36 -

considered and will be allowed to compete with the petitioners and others,

who are having the requisite qualifications and waiting for their

appointment on merits.  It is the apprehension of the petitioners that all

this is done just to favour these GFTs by giving them the appointment.

The benefit is extended even to those Teachers working in privatelymanaged government aided schools and recognized schools.  According to

petitioners, this is only a make belief just to show that this exemption is a

uniform exemption and not for the Guest Faculty only, but for the benefit of

teaching faculty in all.  Otherwise argued the petitioners, the whole

intention is to circumvent the basic mandate of this Court in Ashok Kumar’s

case (supra) and that of the Supreme Court in  Mohinder Kumar’s case

(supra) whereby these types of exemptions are held to be arbitrary and

violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India

19. Mr.Anupam Gupta, learned senior counsel, appearing for the

petitioners, spearheaded the attack by exemplifying the aforesaid

submissions in the following manner:

(i) Track record in which the Government has conducted

itself in past few years clearly exemplifies the intention

of the Government, namely, somehow help these GFTs;

(ii) This intention of the  Government is very clear even

from the online application form wherein a specific

column is provided asking as to whether the candidate

is working as Guest Teacher in the State of Haryana or

not. The column, in verbatim, is as under:

“Are you working as Guest Teacher in Haryana”

(iii) That by providing this exemption, respondent

department/Government has treated equals and CWP-15929-2012 - 37 -

unequals equally which is not  permissible from any

corner of law as any sort of classification should have

some nexus with the ultimate object sought to be

achieved whereas in the present case, the only object of

the respondent department/Government is just to

accommodate/select these  GFTs by any means by

providing them any sort of relaxation/exemptions;

(iv) Mr. Gupta also found oblique motive in specifying period

of four years’ experience for grant of exemption and not

any other period.  In this behalf, the argument is that

for the first time, the GFTs were appointed in the year

2005 and this process of engaging GFTs was continued

up to the year 2008. Thereafter, no GFT was appointed.

The last appointment of  GFTs was made in the year

2008.  This is why, magic number of four years is given

by the respondent-State. He argued that in Secretary,

State of Karnataka & others  vs.   Uma Devi &

others,  (2006) 4 SCC 1, the Supreme Court  has

categorically held that the persons who have been

appointed by irregular process of selection (not illegal)

and who are working for the last more than 10 years

should be regularized by one time policy framed by the

Government.  But unfortunately, the Government of

Haryana cannot apply the mandate given in Uma Devi’s

case (supra) on the GFTs because they have their own

categoric stand in this Court  that these appointments

are stop gap arrangement and without following the CWP-15929-2012 - 38 -

exact intent of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of

India and that is why the respondent

department/Government is trying to benefit these GFTs

by providing these types of exemptions, that too by

making a specific mention in the application form  and

seeking specific information from the  GFTs about their

status.  If at all, the intention of the Government would

have been to make transparent selection, by providing

exemption, the question in the application form should

have been about the status of all the teachers working

in the privately managed government aided, recognized

and Government schools.  Here, it is important to

mention that the  GFTs are only in the Government

schools.  Therefore, keeping in view the intention of the

Government, they have provided these exemptions in

note (i) of the Rules of 2012 dated 11.4.2012;

(v) It was also submitted by Mr.Gupta that as per the

information provided under the RTI, thousands of

candidates have passed the STET/HTET test in different

subjects and are waiting for their selection. Thus, when

sufficient number of eligible candidates are available in

the market, who have applied for the post of PGT, there

is no reason or justification to  give relaxation to such

Teachers including GFTs and accommodate these

ineligible candidates which is also irrational, illogical,

arbitrary and thus, amounts to infraction of Article 14 of

the Constitution.  This Note (i) in Appendix-B and CWP-15929-2012 - 39 -

further amendment giving relaxation of B.Ed. as well,

was also challenged as colourable exercise of power;

Mr.K.S. Dadwal, learned  counsel for the writ petitioner (in CWP-25476-

2012), in addition, raised the following arguments:

vi) Giving relaxations to GFTs and other such Teachers and

making them eligible, had resulted in short-listing

because of swelling number of the total candidates. This

short-listing was done in 4 disciplines, whereas, the

advertisement pertained to 14 subjects. Though the

requirement as per the rules is 50% marks in M.A.,

because of the short-listing, this bar was raised higher.

The effect of that was that many eligible candidates

from amongst the petitioners stood excluded from

consideration.  It was argued that had there been no

exemption, most of these candidates would have been

eligible as in such eventuality there might not have

been any occasion for short-listing.  It was also

submitted that short-listing in four subjects was

because of the reason that almost all the GFTs belong to

these four subjects and thus, it was done with intention

to help them.  The effect of this was that many eligible

candidates were out of consideration, whereas, ineligible

candidates like the GFTs were being considered;

(vii) Learned counsel drew attention to Rule 5 of NCTE Rules,

which read as under:CWP-15929-2012 - 40 -

“In accordance with the provisions of subsection(1) OF Section 23 of the RTE Act, the

National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE)

had vide Notification dated 23rd August, 2010

and 29th July, 2011 laid down the minimum

qualifications for a person to be eligible for

appointment as a teacher in classes I to VIII.  It

had been inter alia provided that one of the

essential qualifications for a person to be

eligible for appointment as a teacher in any of

the schools referred to in clause (n) of section 2

of the RTE Act is that he/she should pass the

Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) which will be

conducted by the appropriate Government in

accordance with the Guidelines framed by the

NCTE.

The rationale for including the TET as a

minimum qualification for a person to be eligible

for appointment as a teacher is as under:-

i. It would bring national standards and

benchmark of teacher quality in the

recruitment process;

ii. It would induce teacher education

institutions and students from these

institutions to further improve their

performance standards;

iii. It would send a positive signal to all

stakeholders that the Government lays

special emphasis on teacher quality.”

As per this rule, relaxation, if any, could be given by NCTE.  On that basis,

it was sought to contend that there was no jurisdiction with the State to

frame such rules and provide relaxation by themselves by-passing  NCTE

and, therefore, such an action was ultra vires the powers of the State

Government as well.

20. Mr.Jagbir Malik, Advocate, appearing for some of the

petitioners, made additional arguments:

(viii) By exempting the passing of STET exam, no weightage

thereto is given which is contrary to the entire scheme

of inclusion of STET as mandatory requirement. HeCWP-15929-2012 - 41 -

stressed the rationale behind the passing of STET as

essential qualification issued by CBSE in the following

words:

Mr.Malik, thus, argued that having regard to the importance attached to

the STET examination, there could not have been relaxation to this

provision.

21. The aforesaid contentions are stoutly refuted by Mr. Rana,

learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana and Mr. Chatrath, learned

senior counsel, who appeared for the appellant in LPA No.1715 of  2012,

made his own additions with all vehemence at his command, highlighting

the  circumstances under which GFTs came to be appointed. He made a

fervent appeal with the aid of plethora of case law to the effect that such

a provision made in the rules in the form of Note as well as in

advertisement does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety. We are

not taking note of these submissions in detail here.  Instead we would be

referring to same while giving our reasons in support of our conclusion.

The Decision:

22. Our conclusion, after giving due  consideration to the

arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, is that  attack on the

validity of the rule is devoid of any merit and stands blunted when

examined on the touchstone of legal principles. The rules do not have any

blemish and the Note  (i) in Appendix ‘B’ of the Rules, 2012, exempting

Teachers with experience of four years from passing STET/HTET and

B.Ed., as a one time measure, is not violative of Article 14 of the

Constitution or suffers from any other illegality.

Reasons in Support:CWP-15929-2012 - 42 -

23. At the outset, we would like to comment that this exemption

provides as a one time measure only entitles Teachers with experience of

four years, from passing STET/HTET and B.Ed. while considering their

cases for appointment.  Further it is not that the  requirement of passing

STET/HTET and B.Ed. is waived for all times to come. In the relaxation

which is given, it is specifically provided that those Teachers who are

selected for appointment on regular basis will have to pass STET/HTET

and B.Ed. by 1.4.2015, failing which their appointment shall stand<b

Show more