Civil Writ Petition No. 12548 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 12548 of 2009 Date of decision: 30.07.2010 Dr. Satbir Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. J.P.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana for the State. Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vishal Malik, Advocate for respondents No. 6 to 12, 15, 17 to 21, 23, 24, 33 & 39. Mr. Jitender Nara, Advocate for respondent No. 13. Mr. Rajbir Sehrawat, Advocate for respondent No. 37. Mr. Amit Shivram, Advocate for respondents No. 5 & 38. ***** RANJIT SINGH J. This order will dispose of two Civil Writ Petitions No. 12548 of 2009 and 5779 of 2010. Application for 498 posts of Sanskrit teachers were invited by the respondent-State on 20.07.2006. The essential Civil Writ Petition No. 12548 of 2009 2 qualifications for the post, as per the advertisement, were as under:- “ Qualifications: (i) Shastri/B.A. (Honours in Sanskrit). (ii)L.T.C./OT in Sanskrit conducted by the Haryana Education Department or an equivalent qualification OR B.T./B.Ed with Sanskrit as teaching subject. (iii)Hindi upto Matric Standard. However, in the said advertisement under the column of qualification a note was given which is reproduced as under:- NOTE: In case the candidates of above mentioned qualifications are not available then B.A. with Sanskrit as an elective subject with B.T./B.Ed. from a recognised University with Sanskrit as one of the teaching subject shall be considered.” The petitioners have filed this writ petition to challenge the appointment as made on the ground that the petitioners had a preferential right for appointment and appointment of respondents No. 4 to 39, as per note above, could be considered only in case the persons like the petitioners were not available. The petitioners, accordingly, seeks writ of mandamus directing the respondents No. 1 to 3 to select and appoint the petitioners. The only issue which requires consideration is whether the respondents were eligible to be considered or if the petitioners had any preferential right for consideration of an appointment or not as the private respondents had qualification given in the note above. Notice of motion was issued. Replies have been filed by the various respondents including the private respondents. In the Civil Writ Petition No. 12548 of 2009 3 reply filed by the Commission, it is pointed out that the petitioners as well as respondents were considered eligible for appointment and the appointment of respondents No. 4 to 39 have been made as they were found meritorious during the selection. As per the stand of the Commission, petitioners No. 1 to 9 had obtained the 46.53, 43.13, 43.20, 45.46, 43.71, 45.65, 45.65, 45.04 and 40.63 marks, respectively whereas the last candidates selected in the general category had obtained 54.20 marks. The last female selected had obtained 53.03 marks in the general category. It is thus stated that the petitioners could not be appointed as they are found less meritorious. Learned counsel for the petitioners has mainly stressed upon the note given in the advertisement, which has been reproduced above. Mr. Malik, learned senior counsel appearing for some of the respondents, however, would refer to the reply filed by him to say that the respondents had approached this Court by way of Civil Writ Petition No. 10926 of 2007, which was decided by Division Bench by this Court on 21.12.2007. The Court in this case has held that the respondents therein were eligible for being considered for the post as advertised as they were having M.A in Sanskrit, which is the higher qualification. The relevant observations made by the Court are reproduced below:- “ In view of facts of this case, as referred to above, position is altogether different. The petitioners have successfully proved on record that they are highly qualified in the same line of education than the prescribed qualification for the post.” Civil Writ Petition No. 12548 of 2009 4 Once the respondents were held eligible for consideration as they possessed higher qualification, it cannot be said that the respondent did not possess the basic qualification as prescribed that the petitioners had a preferential right of consideration, as per the note in the advertisement. The Division Bench of this Court had held the respondents eligible as they would having higher qualification, which is prescribed as the essential qualification and not that they were having qualification which is on the basis of note given and reproduced above. Accordingly, the submission made by the counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. In view of the position as explained above, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. July 30, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE