CWP No. 17433 of 2011 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 17433 of 2011 Date of Decision: September 16, 2011 Hari Chand and others …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Robin Dutt, Advocate for the petitioners. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against notification dated 23.08.2010 (P-2), issued by the National Council for Teacher Education (for brevity 'NCTE') stipulating the condition of eligibility to appear in the Teacher Eligibility Test. According to Clause I (ii), the teachers for VI to VIII are required to have B.A./B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and one year B.Ed. (Special Education) in order to be eligible for appointment as Teacher. They are further required to have Teacher Eligibility Test to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the guidelines framed by the NCTE. The petitioners have been working as Guest Teachers in the respondent-State of Haryana and have less than 50% marks at graduation level. They are not even eligible to appear in the Teacher Eligibility Test and argument raised is that their degrees in fact have been de-recognized by stipulating that they CWP No. 17433 of 2011 -2- should have at least 50% marks at graduation level (B.A./ B.Sc. and one year B.Ed. (Special Education). 2. The argument seems to be that they have passed the degrees of B.A./ B.Sc. prior to issuance of notification and therefore, the notification cannot exclude such candidates who have qualified the exam. Earlier by securing less than 50% marks. Learned counsel has argued that it would result into retrospective implementation of the notification. 3. Having heard learned counsel, we are of the considered view that the petitioners have no right to seek appointment on the basis of qualifications which do not match the criteria. If they are unable to match the criteria then it cannot be insisted that the old criteria should be followed or the provisions be struck down confining its scope to the degrees acquired after the date of notification. The petitioner has no vested rights to be considered even if he has less than 50% at graduation level. The argument is wholly preposterous and we find no merit that it violates the Article 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. There is, thus, no merit in the petition which does not warrant admission. 4. Dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE September 16, 2011 Atul