IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. CWP. No. 3472 of 2009 Date of Decision: 9.2.2010. Ajit Singh & others --Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents 2. CWP. No. 3633 of 2009 Bindu --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another --Respondents 3. CWP. No. 3968 of 2009 Sushila --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Anurag Goel, Advocate. Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate. Mr. Jitender Nara, Advocate. Mr. R.S. Kundu, Addl. A.G., Haryana *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Since common question of law based upon commonality of facts is involved in these writ petitions, hence, all these petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The petitioners in all these petitions are working as language teachers/lecturers. The Haryana Staff Selection Commission i.e respondent no.2 invited applications for 43 posts of Principals H.E.S-II vide Advertisement No. 2/2008 dated 14.3.2008. Apart from the educational CWP. No. 3472 of 2009 -2- qualification, experience was also prescribed as one of the eligibility criteria. The relevant extract of the advertisement is as under:- “ (i) M.A., M.Sc., M.Com. Second Division; (ii) B.T./B.Ed. Or its equivalent; (iii)(i) in case of Headmaster, eight years teaching experience of Master out of which two years experience should be in an administrative capacity as Head of High School; (ii) In case of Lecturers, eight years teaching experience as Master/Lecturer out of which at least two years experience should be as Lecturer in Govt./Recognized School. (iii) Knowledge of Hindi/Sanskrit up to Matric standard. Note:(i) For ex-servicemen, the experience of Army Education Corps. Instructor having qualifications of BA/B.Ed will be treated equivalent to Master and those, having qualifications of M.A./M.Sc./M.Com will be treated equal to Lecturer in School Cadre. Note: (ii) The experience certificate of recognized school shall be counter signed by the concerned District Education Officer. Pay Scale: 8000-275-10200-EB-275-13500. Age: 25-50 years.” The petitioners claim to be eligible submitted their applications for their consideration for appointment as Principals. It is stated that they were waiting for the interview call, however, no interview letter was issued to them. The petitioners, accordingly, made representations. The petitioners received letters regarding rejection of their candidature. The ground for their rejection is as under:- CWP. No. 3472 of 2009 -3- “ (viii) Do not fulfill the condition of experience as per advertisement.” Aggrieved of their rejection of candidatures, petitioners have filed these writ petitions. Similar petitions being CWP Nos. 3878 & 6972 of 2008 have been decided by this Court vide judgement dated 17.2.2009. Relying upon a Division Bench judgement of this Court CWP No. 10928 of 2007 titled as “Ashok Kumar and others V. State of Haryana and others” was decided on 21.12.2007. The Hon'ble Division in the aforesaid case made following observations:- “ Admittedly, the petitioners do not possess the qualification of Shastri/BA (Honours in Sanskrit). So far as other qualifications are concerned, there is no dispute between the parties. Now, it is to be seen whether the petitioners, who are M.A in subject of Sanskrit, are eligible to be considered for the posts in question.....” “ In the present case also, the petitioners possess the higher qualification in the same line of study/education. They are M.A in the subject of Sanskrit. Experts from the Universities have categorically stated vide certificates Annexures P/3 to P/5 that the syllabus of M.A Sanskrit is much higher in all respects in comparison to Shastri/BA in Honours in Sanskrit.” Based upon the aforesaid observations, a Coordinate Bench of this Court allowed CWP Nos. 3878 and 6972 of 2008 with the following directions:- “ In these circumstances, the petition is disposed of at this stage by declaring that the petitioners would be eligible to be considered for the CWP. No. 3472 of 2009 -4- post of Principal. It has also been brought to my notice that the petitioners were provisionally interviewed under interim orders of this court. The respondents are directed to declare the result of the petitioners within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case, the petitioners are found to have made the cut, they would be at liberty to challenge the selection of such persons who may have been appointed. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.” The respondents in their reply have stated that the judgement referred to above passed in CWP No. 3878 of 2008 and other judgement is subject matter of LPA Nos. 725 and 726 of 2009 and the Hon'ble L.P.A Bench has passed the status quo order in the aforesaid two appeals. Mr. Anurag Goel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has stated at the bar that both the L.P.As stand dismissed and the judgement of learned Single Judge dated 17.2.2009 has been affirmed. In the present case the petitioners were allowed to appear in the interview vide various interim orders passed in each writ petition. In view of the above circumstances, the result of the petitioners shall be declared treating them as eligible. Petitions disposed of. Copy of this order be placed on each connected file. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 9.2.2010. lucky