IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No. 1389 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 9, 2011 State of Haryana and others …Appellants Versus Sunita Rani and another …Respondents CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. . JUSTICE M.M. . JUSTICE M.M. . JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR KUMAR KUMAR KUMAR HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE MR. JU . JU . JU . JUSTICE STICE STICE STICE GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Addl. AG, Haryana, for the appellants. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR M.M. KUMAR M.M. KUMAR M.M. KUMAR, J.J.J.J. 1. The instant Letters Patent Appeal is directed against judgment dated 29.4.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the qualification of School Teachers Eligibility Test (STET) was essential as per the Haryana State Education Lecturer School Cadre (Group-C) Service Rules, 1998 read with Appendix ‘B’ (for brevity, ‘the Rules’). According to the view expressed by the learned Single Judge, Ms. Sunila – respondent No. 2 did not have the aforesaid qualification which has been incorporated by way of amendment in ‘the Rules’ on 24.7.2008 (P-1). 2. The writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 had qualified the ‘STET’ examination on 15.10.2008 and had applied before the last date for submission of applications i.e. 30.10.2009. The aforesaid date is considered as cut-off date for deciding eligibility as has been LPA No. 1389 of 2011 (O&M) 2 held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. M.V. Nair Dr. M.V. Nair Dr. M.V. Nair Dr. M.V. Nair v. v. v. v. Union of India Union of India Union of India Union of India, (1993) 2 SCC 429 , (1993) 2 SCC 429 , (1993) 2 SCC 429 , (1993) 2 SCC 429. On account of lack of necessary qualification as prescribed in ‘the Rules’, the selection and appointment of respondent No. 2 has been set aside. She did not qualify the ‘STET’ examination. Accordingly, the appellants have been asked to offer appointment to the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1. 3. Mr. Aman Chaudhary, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, has submitted that there is an error on facts in the last but two paragraphs of the impugned judgment in so far as the appellant State has been imputed the stand that the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 did not have the requisite qualification on the date of consideration. In that regard, learned counsel has made a reference to preliminary submission in para 1 of the written statement filed by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission- appellant No. 3. It has been stated in the aforesaid para that the vacancy which pertained to the period prior to the date of amendment could have been filled by the un-amended Rules. In other words, the principle of ‘old vacancy old rule’ is sought to be invoked. 4. We have considered the aforesaid submission. It may be true that the appellants have not anywhere taken the stand that the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 was not eligible. However, the fact remains that neither the principle of ‘old vacancy old rule’ would apply to a case involving direct recruitment nor it could be said that respondent No. 2 had requisite qualification. In that regard, learned Single Judge has rightly placed reliance on various judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court including Pramod Kumar Pramod Kumar Pramod Kumar Pramod Kumar v. v. v. v. LPA No. 1389 of 2011 (O&M) 3 U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission, 2008 (3) RSJ 78 , 2008 (3) RSJ 78 , 2008 (3) RSJ 78 , 2008 (3) RSJ 78 and Dharminder Singh Dharminder Singh Dharminder Singh Dharminder Singh v. v. v. v. State of Punjab State of Punjab State of Punjab State of Punjab, 2009 (2) RSJ 453 , 2009 (2) RSJ 453 , 2009 (2) RSJ 453 , 2009 (2) RSJ 453. Accordingly, we find that the reliance of the learned Single Judge on the aforesaid judgments is meritorious because in respect of the posts meant for direct recruitment the principle of ‘old vacancy old rule’ would not apply. Such a principle could be applicable only on the posts which are required to be filled up by promotion, as has been held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Y.V. Rangaiah Y.V. Rangaiah Y.V. Rangaiah Y.V. Rangaiah v. v. v. v. J. J. J. J. Sreenivasa Rao Sreenivasa Rao Sreenivasa Rao Sreenivasa Rao, AIR 1983 SC 852 , AIR 1983 SC 852 , AIR 1983 SC 852 , AIR 1983 SC 852. There is, thus, no merit in this appeal except a minor error in the last but two paras of the judgment to the extent the stand of the respondent may not be read as noticed in the aforesaid para. Dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH) August August August August 9, , , , 2011 2011 2011 2011 JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE PKapoor