IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.725 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 09.11.2009 State of Haryana and another. -----Appellants Vs. Rajinder Sharma. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashish Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent/caveator. --- Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. The State of Haryana has filed this appeal against judgment of the learned Single Judge, directing consideration of the respondent as eligible for the post of Principal. LPA No.725 of 2009 2. Grievance in the writ petition was against order dated 26.3.2008, Annexure P.1 rejecting candidature of the petitioner for the post of Principal. 3. Case of the respondent is that he was appointed as Sanskrit Teacher and worked from 27.12.1991 to 22.10.2002 and thereafter, from 23.10.2002 till the filing of the petition in the year 2008, he worked as lecturer in Hindi. In pursuance of advertisement dated 9.11.2007, he applied for the post of Principal but his application was rejected on the ground that he was not eligible. 4. Contention raised in the petition was that interpretation placed on the relevant rules was untenable. Requirement under the rule was for eight years’ teaching experience as Master/Lecturer while experience of the respondent was about 16 years. 5. The petition was contested mainly on the ground that eight years experience as ‘Master’ did not include experience as ‘Sanskrit teacher’. 2 LPA No.725 of 2009 6. The learned Single Judge upheld the contentions on behalf of the respondent. Before learned Single Judge, following three contentions were raised on behalf of the respondent:- (i) Pay scale and post of Language Teacher and Trained Graduate Teacher were same. ii) Educational qualification for the post was same i.e. Graduation which was at par with the qualification for a Language teacher i.e.Shastri/Parbhakar/Giani. iii) For promotion to the post of lecturer/Head Master/Principal, the experience gained as Language teacher was treated as equivalent experience gained as Trained Graduate Teacher. 7. Learned Single Judge after referring to judgment of this Court in Ashok Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others, CWP No.10926 of 2007 decided on 21.12.2007, holding that qualification of M.A. Sanskrit was at par with Shastri/BA (Honours in Sanskrit), held that the respondent was eligible. 3 LPA No.725 of 2009 8. The matter was considered by this Court on the last date i.e. 17.8.2009. Contention raised on behalf of the appellant was that experience as Sanskrit Teacher could not be counted, as Sanskrit teacher was not at par with ‘Master’ even if his pay scale and nature of duties were same and even if Sanskrit Teacher was treated at par with Master for promotion to the post of lecturer and Head Master. 9. On being asked as to what was the qualitative difference in working as a Sanskrit Teacher or any other teacher and whether any study had been undertaken for making such distinction, learned counsel for the State sought time to take instructions. 10. CM No.3225 of 2009 has been filed to place on record proceedings of meeting dated 30.10.2009. Surprisingly, it has been mentioned that proceedings of meeting were to be placed on record in compliance of order of this Court and report of a committee which is said to have been constituted in view of query raised by this Court has been annexed. Order of this Court neither 4 LPA No.725 of 2009 directed any committee to be constituted nor any report to be placed on record. Court had only asked whether any study had been undertaken before the rule in question was framed and adjourned the matter to enable the counsel to take instructions. The application is accompanied by affidavit of Shri Vijay Pal, Advocate instead of affidavit of a party. We cannot approve filing of an affidavit by an Advocate as a substitute for a litigant. There being no direction for constitution of any committee or for filing report of such a committee, the application is misconceived and is dismissed. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that under the rules, the respondent was not eligible. He has referred to Haryana State Education (School and Inspection Cadre) (Group B) Service Rules, 1998, as amended on 1.10.2001. The said rules lay down qualification for the post of Principal and the amended rule is as under:- 5 LPA No.725 of 2009 “(II) In case of Lecturers eight years teaching experience as Master/Lecturer out of which atleast two years experience should be as Lecturer in Government/Recognised School.” 13. It is undisputed that the respondent was Lecturer and he had eight years’ teaching experience of which more than two years was as Lecturer and rest of the experience was a Sanskrit teacher. It is also undisputed that the scale of pay for Masters(Teachers) of different subjects i.e. Social Studies, Science, Mathematics, Agriculture, Commerce, Home Science, Music, Art, Hindi, Punjabi and Sanskrit was same. It is also not disputed that they were equally eligible for the next post of Lecturer in Haryana State Education Lecturer School Cadre (Group C) Service Rules, 1998 in the pay scale of Rs.2000-60-2300-75-2900-EB-100- 3500. Only difference sought to be pointed out is that in, Haryana State Education School Cadre ( Group C) Service Rules, 1998, even though, Sanskrit teacher and 6 LPA No.725 of 2009 other teachers are in the same pay scale and had the same qualification and promotional avenue to a common higher post of lecturer, one of the feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Master in other subjects was JBT/C&V teachers, while feeder cadre for appointment by promotion to the post of Sanskrit teacher was only JBT teacher and, thus, it could be held that Sanskrit teacher was covered by C&V teachers which was in feeder cadre for the post of other teachers. This argument is wholly untenable. It is clear from the pattern of Appendix ‘B’ of the said rules that experience on the post of C&V teachers is one of the eligibility criteria, apart from qualifications of a particular subject. It is not that every Sanskrit teacher forms part of feeder cadre of every other subject of teachers. Moreover, feeder cadre of JBT and C&V teachers cannot be read as referring to Sanskrit teachers in the cadre and scale of other teachers. Sanskrit teacher in the cadre governed by the Class ‘C’ rules is not equal to JBT/C&V teachers 7 LPA No.725 of 2009 who may be promoted as Masters. Even for promotion to the post of Sanskrit teacher, JBT is a feeder cadre. There is, thus, no distinction whatsoever in the post held by a Sanskrit teacher or any other teacher in the same cadre and in the same scale for the purpose of direct recruitment to the post of Principal. 14. We, thus, do not find any merit in this appeal. The same is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.25,000/-. 15. The costs may be deposited with Punjab and Haryana High Court Legal Aid Committee, as suggested by learned counsel for the respondent/caveator. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge November 09, 2009 (Gurdev Singh) ‘gs’ Judge 8