CWP No.11462 of 2009 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.11462 of 2009 Date of Order: 4.11.2009 Ranjit Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. S.K. Sharma Budhladawale, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Addl.A.G, Haryana for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 & 5. 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR,J Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner, who has been working as a Lectuer, has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a declaration that the amendment made on 30.4.2003 in Appendix A of Haryana School Education Rules 2003 (for brevity “2003 Rules”) by prescribing the qualification of M.A Second Division for appointment to the post of Principal, is unconstitutional. A further prayer has also been made for quashing orders dated 4.7.2008 (Annexure P.14), 7.7.2008 (Annexure P.15) and 5.5.2009 (Annexure P.16) in respect of the petitioner. The aforesaid orders have been issued by the Commissioner and Director, School Education Haryana and District Education Officer, Panchkula. The case of the petitioner is that she has been working on the post of Lecturer since 2.6.1978 and she has been eligible all along for promotion to the post of Principal during all these years under the Rules known as Haryana Aided Schools (Security of Service), Rules 1974 (for CWP No.11462 of 2009 #2# brevity “1974 Rules”). As per the qualification prescribed by Rule 6 read with column 3 of Appendix A of 1974 Rules, the educational qualification for appointment to the post of Principal was M.A without any further requirement of any division. The post of a Principal fell vacant in the College of respondent No.5, which is a State Aided School on 30.5.2003 and the case of the petitioner was duly recommended by the management- respondent No.4 for appointment by passing a resolution on 30.9.2007. Her case did not find favour with the Commissioner and Director, School Education, Chandigarh. The reason given for not approving her case for promotion as Principal was that 1974 Rules were repealed and new Rules were enforced on 30.4.2003, which are known as Haryana School Education Rules 2003. A notification to that effect was issued on 30.4.2003. According to Rule 163(6) read with Appendix A, the minimum qualification for the post of Principal prescribed is M.A Second Division, which would apply to any post or vacancy becoming available after 30.4.2003. The vacancy on post of Principal has arisen on 30.5.2003 and 2003 Rules applied. Admittedly, the petitioner does not possess the qualification of M.A Second Division and the principle of 'Old vacancy Old Rule' would not be attracted because the post of Principal cannot be governed by 1974 Rules as it became available only after the new Rules have been enforced on 30.4.2003. Therefore, we do not find any ground to accept the prayer made by the petitioner and dismiss the writ petition in limine. ( M.M. KUMAR ) JUDGE November 04, 2009 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE