CWP No.1723/2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.1723/2008 Date of Decision: 27.2.2008 Sushil Kumar ............. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others. ..............Respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Ms.Alka Chatrath,Advocate for the petitioner. Sh.Mahabir Singh Sindhu,DAG Haryana for respondents. . ***** JASBIR SINGH, J.(ORAL) Petitioner was a candidate for the post of Head Master. As per rules, for promotion to the abovesaid post, eight years' teaching experience was needed. It is contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that if the period spent by the petitioner, as Guest Faculty Teacher is added, in his experience as a regular teacher, then he will be eligible for the post, referred to above. On 5.2.2008, when notice of motion was issued, the following contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was noted by this Court:- “The petitioner was a candidate for the post of Headmaster. As per rules, to be eligible, besides other qualifications, 8 years' teaching experience, as a master in government recognised Senior Secondary/ High/ Middle Schools etc., is necessary. Counsel for the petitioner states that by adding experience of the petitioner, acquired by serving as guest faculty teacher, he fulfills the necessary condition. After having appeared CWP No.1723/2008 2 in the written examination and interview, his application has been rejected on the ground that he did not possess the requisite qualification of experience.” In response to notice issued, Sh.Sindhu has placed on record a copy of the communication received from the office of the Commissioner & Director General, School Education, Haryana, Chandigarh, wherein it is mentioned as under:- “Sh.Sushil Kumar has filed the above writ petition in the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the decision of Haryana Staff Selection Commission vide which his candidature for the post of Headmaster has been cancelled on the ground of inadequate experience. The contention of the petitioner is that his experience for about one year as Science Master gained on guest faculty basis is liable to be counted for the purpose. In this connection, it is submitted that the minimum 'period' prescribed for a regular master are 36 per week, whereas the number of minimum 'periods' prescribed for the teachers appointed on guest faculty basis are three per day but in some cases the guest teachers teach three to six 'periods' in a day. The case has been submitted to the higher authorities for taking a decision about criteria for counting the experience gained on guest faculty basis i.e. whether experience of teaching three periods is to be counted as experience for full one day or teaching experience of 36 periods is to be counted as one week irrespective of the fact that 36 periods were taught by the guest teacher in 12 CWP No.1723/2008 3 teaching days. The final decision is yet to be taken in the matter.” It appears that virtually it has been decided to count period rendered as guest faculty teachers towards the experience gained, to be eligible for the post in question. In view of the stand taken by the authorities, we are of the view that the writ petition has become infructuous and is disposed of accordingly. The authorities are directed to communicate the decision taken to the petitioner, within three weeks from today. If any adverse order is passed, the petitioner will be at liberty to challenge the same. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 27.2.2008 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge